IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20465 of 2008 Suresh Prasad Yadav alias Suresh Chandra, son of Late Jagdeo Rai, village Sandh, PS Karai Parsurai, District Nalanda – petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Reena Devi, wife of Subhash Kumar, village Galimpur, PS Karai Parsurai, District Nalanda – opp. parties. 4 8.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 25.4.2008 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda in S.T. No. 111/2006 refusing to discharge the petitioner under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. The offences are alleged to have been committed under sections 323, 341, 379 and 504 of the Penal Code and section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution case is that there was an Aam Sabha for the purpose of appointment of Aangan Bari Sevika. It is said that opposite party no.2 stood up in the Aam Sabha and was trying to intervene in the proceeding whereupon the petitioner, who is the Mukhiya, is said to have abused the informant by taking her caste name. On the aforesaid facts the case was instituted. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 24.9.2004 and the case was instituted two months thereafter on 24.11.2004. Before institution of the case, opposite party filed a Sanha on 24.9.2004 i.e. the date on which the occurrence had taken place in which she has alleged that the petitioner had abused her. On the basis of the Sanha an enquiry was held vide Annexure 3. The enquiry report of the Officer Incharge indicates that all the witnesses present there have stated that no such occurrence had taken place and the case has been filed because of the fact that 2 opposite party no.2 was appointed as Shiksha Mitra in 2003 but was later terminated as she did not have the qualifying marks. The qualifying marks was 45% whereas opposite party no.2 had 33% marks. Referring to the case diary the parties have submitted that the witnesses examined at paragraphs 6, 11, 12, 19, 24, 25, 26 and 27 have specifically stated that no such occurrence had taken place. It would be important to refer to paragraph 47 of the case diary which is the statement of the Child Development Project Officer who was present in the meeting. At paragraph 47 it is specifically mentioned that on 24.9.2004 when the selection of Aangan Bari Sevika was taking place, several persons were present. Reena Devi, the informant was also present. The Child Development Project Officer stated that no such occurrence has taken place and the case has been instituted because the lady in question was terminated as she did not have the qualifying marks of 45%. I must refer to the statements of the supervising officer who has stated that the occurrence has taken place as per the statement given by two persons i.e. Chandra Bhushan Paswan and one Kapildeo. Considering the statements in the case diary, the material in the FIR, the Sanha entry as well as the enquiry made on the basis of the Sanha instituted by the petitioner, the facts reveal that opposite party no.2 has instituted the case due to malice as she was terminated by the petitioner because she did not have the qualifying marks. From the records it appear that the FIR was instituted as the enquiry report 3 of the Officer Incharge did not support the occurrence and, therefore, after two months the said FIR has been instituted. In a case of this nature where there is a motive and that too a strong one for implicating a person who was responsible for terminating opposite party no.2, it cannot be said that the occurrence is believable. Therefore, except the statement of the informant and her husband and two others who were not examined by the Investigating Officer, there is no material to support the allegations. I also find that no offence is made out under sections 323, 341, 379 and 504 of the Penal Code. The factum of causing injury or wrongfully restraining opposite party, or committing theft and for creating a situation which would lead to a law and order situation, is not supported during investigation of the case. Therefore, no offences are made out under the aforesaid sections. As far as the allegation with respect to SC/ST Act are concerned, since this court finds that the prosecution case as indicated in the FIR is unbelievable for the reasons stated above, the allegations of taking caste name and hurling abuses is also unbelievable. In the circumstances I find that this is a malicious prosecution and the case made out by opposite party no.2 is unbelievable and untrue and as such the order impugned dated 254.2008 is hereby quashed. This application is allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)