IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27173 of 2009 1. Md.Sahid, S/O-Late Imajuddin 2. Md. Mustaque @ Mustaque Alam, S/O- Md. Naimuddin Both R/O-Village- Bargaon, Bisanpur, P.S.- Korha, District-Katihar ……………………Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ashma Khatoon, W/O-Khurshid Alam, R/O-Village-Bargaon, P.S.-Korha, District-Katihar ……… Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioners :-Md. Nurul Hoda For the Opposite Party No. 2 :- Abhay Kumar Singh No.1 Bharat Bhushan 03 10.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 on the point of admission. This criminal miscellaneous case has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 19.05.2009 passed by Sri O.P. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 2686 of 2008 by which and whereunder having found prima facie case under Section 323, 354 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, he ordered to issue summons to procure the attendance of petitioners for facing trial. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Ashma Khatoon lodged Korha P.S. Case No. 67 of 2008 under Sections 341, 323, 353, 354, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and others. The aforesaid case was investigated by the police and after completion of the investigation, police submitted final form showing the accusation 2 untrue. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a protest petition before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar and the said protest petition was converted into complaint petition and learned court below conducted an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of the enquiry passed the impugned order in the manner as stated above. The Opposite Party No. 2 has stated in her complaint petition that on 30.03.2008 at about 11:00 A.M., she was performing her duty of Pulse Poleo and in course of her duty, she reached at the house of petitioner no. 1 for the performance of her medical duty and the wife of petitioner no. 1 requested the Opposite Party No. 2 to come into the house and when she went inside the house of the petitioner no. 1, she was abused and assaulted by the petitioners and two others and in that course petitioner no. 2 torn her SARI and blouse and tried to outrage her modesty upon which she raised alarm which attracted her husband and other witnesses and furthermore, it is stated that the bicycle of her husband valued Rs. 2,000/- was snatched by petitioner no. 1. The Opposite Party No. 2 gave written information to the concerned C.D.P.O. who forwarded the aforesaid written information to the concerned Police Station and, thereafter, above stated Korha P.S. Case No. 67 of 2008 was registered in which subsequently final form was submitted finding the accusation untrue. Against the submission of final form, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a protest petition which was converted into complaint 3 case no. 2686 of 2008 and after proper enquiry the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, as a matter of fact, there was land dispute between Opposite Party No. 2 and petitioners and besides it wife of petitioner no. 2 lodged Korha P.S. Case No. 59 of 2008 under Section 341, 323, 504, 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code against husband of the Opposite Party No. 2 and her other family members and that is why the complainant has brought Korha P.S. Case No. 67 of 2008 as well as present complaint petition to save the skin of her husband and her other family members from Korha P.S. Case No. 59 of 2008 and also on account of above stated land dispute. It is further contended by him that the present case has been brought by the complainant with mala fide intention but the learned court below did not pay any heed towards the aforesaid fact and, therefore, the impugned order dated 19.05.2009 is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred the decision reported in 2008 (1) PLJR Page-82 and submitted that the Apex Court of this country has held in the aforesaid decision that if a prosecution is brought on account of mala fide intention, the court must use its inherent power vested under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2 supported the impugned order and submitted that learned court below having conducted enquiry under Section 4 202 of the Cr.P.C. has found prima facie case true against the petitioners. So, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the record as well as decision as cited above by learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited this Court to infer the mala fide intention of Opposite Party No. 2 on the ground of land dispute as well as counter case but, in my view, mere filing of counter case and land dispute are not sufficient to infer this fact that the Opposite Party No. 2 has brought the Complaint Case No. 2686 of 2008 with mala fide intention. Admittedly, on the alleged date of occurrence, Opposite Party No. 2 gave a written report to her immediate superior authority i.e. C.D.P.O. who, in turn, sent the said report to the concerned police station and on the basis of aforesaid written report, Korha P.S. Case No. 67 of 2008 was registered though after investigation police submitted final form in the above stated Korha P.S. Case No. 67 of 2008 finding the case untrue but it is an admitted position that Opposite Party No. 2 having got notice from the court about submission of the final form filed a protest petition which was subsequently, converted into the complaint case and after due enquiry learned court below passed the impugned order. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety into the impugned order 5 and, in my view, there is no ground for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary power vested under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In result, this criminal miscellaneous case stands dismissed on admission stage itself. Let this order be communicated to the court of Sri O.P. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar or his successor in Complaint Case No. 2686 of 2008. SHAHZAD ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)