IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44464 of 2006 1. AKBARI KHATOON, W/o Md. Mumtazuddin, D/o Abdul Wahab 2. Abdul Wahab, Son of late 3. Jarina Wahab, W/o Abdul Wahab, All belongs to resident of villase Sadisopur, P.S. Bihta, District Patna. …… petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Md. Mumtazuddin, Son of late md. Aziz @ Bhalglu Khan, R/o village Kandea, P.S. Chandauti, District Gaya. …. Opp. Parties. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Bajrangi Lal, Advocate O R D E R This application by three of the five persons arrayed as accused is for the quashing of order dated 29.7.2005 passed by Sri Ashok Rai, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya, in Complaint Case No. 884 of 2005, whereby he has taken cognizance under sections 323, 341, 379, 147, 504 and 149 IPC against all the accused including the petitioners. One Md. Mumtazuddin, the complainant impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2 filed the aforesaid complaint on 25.6.2005 alleging that while he was returning home at about 7 P.M. on 25.6.2005 along with the witnesses named in the complaint having purchased some clothings which he had kept in sling bag and was also carrying Rs. 3000 in cash which he had taken by way of loan from a friend, and as he reached near the Millat Hospital he was surrounded by the accused amongst whom Abdul Wahab, Kamru Zama and Fakre Alam were armed with pistols and the 2 others were armed with hockey sticks. It is alleged that on the orders of Abdul Wahab to assault him, the remaining accused started beating him with slaps and fists and on the complainant raising alarm people of the neighbourhood arrived but afraid of the arms carried by the accused, none came to his rescue. It is further alleged that Abdul Wahab took out Rs. 3000/- from his pocket and Kamrul Zama snatched his Titan watch worth Rs. 500/- and Akbari Khatoon snatched the sling bag containing clothes worth Rs. 1500/-. It is said that when the onlookers increased in number the accused fled away. It appears that the complainant haunted by treachery has suppressed material facts while filing the complaint petition. The high point of the treachery is the fact that petitioner no. 1 is none other than his wife and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are his father – in – law and mother – in – law respectively. It also appears that petitioner no. 1 had filed a complaint case against complainant – O.P. no. 2 vide Complaint Case No. 3132 (C) of 2004 in which cognizance had been taken under section 498A IPC and 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . It further appears that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are well advanced in age. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court envisages primarily three situations when the same can be exercised, namely to give effect to (1) an order under the Code, (2) to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and (3) to otherwise secure ends of justice and for this purpose it is neither possible nor desirable to 3 laydown any inflexible rule or guidelines which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. However, broad outlines have been demarcated by precedent and the leading case on the point where the High Court can exercise its power under section 482 Cr.P.C. is available in the decision of State of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal (AIR 1992 SC 604). It would, thus, follow that the principle is that where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with a mala fide intention or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to vilify him due to private and personal grudge the High Court can interfere under section 482 Cr.P.C. That apart the allegation in the complaint petition is so rheumatic and inherently absurd that it is fit to be quashed. There is another aspect of the matter. As per the allegations in the complaint petition the incident appears to have taken place near Millat Hospital within Civil Lines P.S. in the town and district of Gaya and that notwithstanding all the accused persons belonged to village Raghopur within Bihta P.S. in the District of Patna and it is difficult to reconcile that only with the intention to assault the complainant with slaps and fists and to snatch his cash, watch and clothing the petitioners would travel all the way to Gaya to resort to such overt acts. From the above it only appears that the allegations resorted to by the complainant is nothing but vexatious and an 4 abuse of the process of the Court. In the result I find apparent illegality in the impugned order so as to interfere under section 482 Cr.P.C. In the result the impugned order is quashed and the application so far as the petitioners are concerned is allowed. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated : The 20th of May, 2009 Sanjay Pd./A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)