IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18302 of 1998 1. LAXMI KANT SINGH SON OF TUNI LAL SINGH 2. HOSLA PRASAD SINGH SON OF LAXMI KANT SINGH BOTH FATHER AND SON,RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PATORI,P.S. BISHANPUR, DISTT. DARBHANGA…….. PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM KISHORE THAKUR SON OF LATE ANAND THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GOPALPUR, P.S. BISHANPUR, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA …………………..OPP.PARTIES ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER ;- MD. KAMRAN, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE :- MR. LALA KAILASH BIHARI PARASAD, P.P. ----------- 7 26-3-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Opposite party no 2, the informant/complainant has appeared through counsel whose name is printed in the daily cause list but no one appears for him. 2. Both the petitioners are accused in C.R. Case No. 620/95 leading to trial no. 1038/97 which was earlier pending before Judicial Magistrate, Ist. Class, Darbhanga. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 29-8-1997 for offences under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed 2 out that earlier, for the same occurrence in question the opposite party no.2 had instituted Bishanpur P.S.Case No. 66 of 1992 for offences under sections 147,448,363 and 364 of the I.P.C. which was investigated by the police and found false and accordingly final report was submitted showing the allegations to be false and recommending action against the informant under sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code for lodging false case. The informant thereafter filed protest-cum-complaint petition and on that basis the impugned order of cognizance has been passed. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the opposite party no.2 wanted to get one Sundeshwar Thakur and his father Gayanand Thakur declared lunatic in order to grab their properties including those which Sundeshwar had sold for his personal necessity to the petitioners. To achief his designs, as disclosed in the F.I.R. and the Complaint petition, he 3 got a civil suit instituted before the District Judge, Darbhanga bearing Misc.( Lunacy) Case No. 5 of 1991 with a prayer that he or any other suitable person be appointed as guardian, curator and manager of the persons and properties of Gyanand Thakur and his son Sundeshwar Thakur on the ground that they are lunatics. 5. With the same allegation that they are lunatics, the present criminal case was lodged with a further allegation that when the complainant had kept those persons in his house for treatment, both of them were kidnapped by the accused persons, the petitioners. It is case of the petitioners that police found the allegation of alleged kidnapping false and the alleged victims disclosed that the complainant was trying to grab their properties by falsely declaring them as lunatics and they did not support the allegations against the petitioners and therefore police filed final report. 4 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment in Lunatic Case No.5/91 dated 28-11-1994 contained in annexure-4 wherein the District Judge, Darbhanga has found the case of the complainant false and has held that Sundeshwar Thakur was not a lunatic and there was no need to appoint any guardian for him. Paragraph 22 of that judgment was highlighted to show that the victim of kidnapping, Sundeshwar was examined as opposite party witness no.4 and his evidence as noticed by the learned District Judge, Darbhanga reveals the evil design of the complainant on his property. As a witness the alleged victim disclosed that he has sold his land for personal necessity and the complainant was trying to grab his property by various wrong methods. 7. In view of aforesaid facts, particularly in view of finding given by the District Judge, Darbhanga it is evident that the allegations levelled by the 5 informant/complainant ( opposite party no.2) are mala fide allegations made with oblique motives and interest of justice requires such criminal prosecution to be quashed. Hence, in the interest of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of court the prayer made in this application is allowed and the entire criminal prosecution vide C.R. No.620/95, T.R. Case No. 1038/97 pending before Judicial Magistrate, Ist. Class, Darbhanga is hereby quashed. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) Naresh