CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.13800 OF 2004 ********** In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ********** 1. SHASHI SHEKHAR S/O SRI SURENDRA NATH VERMA, ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, FOREST EXTENSION DIVISION, PATNA R/O SOUTH MANDIRI, PATNA, DISTRICT- PATNA. 2. KANHAIYA RAM S/O LATE RAJMAN RAM, RANGE OFFICER OF FOREST DANAPUR, R/O MOHALLA KHAJPURA BAILEY ROAD, PATNA- 14 P.S. GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA. 3. BIMAL KUMAR JHA S/O SRI NAND LAL JHA, RANGE OFFICER OF FOREST, MASAURHI R/O GANDHI MAIDAN, MASAURHI, DISTRICT- PATNA. 4. VINAY KUMAR SINHA S/O LATE GULZARI SINGH BEAT OFFICER, KANKARBAGH BEAT, FOREST EXTENSION RANGE, PATNA, R/O NAVNEET COLONY, RUKUNPURA, PATNA, DISTRICT- PATNA. 5. NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA S/O PARSHURAM SHARMA, BEAT OFFICER, NEW CAPITAL AREA BEAT FOREST EXTENSION RANGE PATNA R/O SANJAY GANDHI JAIVIK UDDYAN, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA. 6. AKHILESHWAR PRASAD CHAUDHARY S/O LATE JAGLAL CHAUDHARY, SUB BEAT OFFICER, KANKARBAGH, SUB BEAT FOREST EXTENSION RANGE, PATNA, R/O KANKARBAGH, PATNA DISTRICT PATNA. 7. LAXMAN RAI S/O SRI MAHESH RAI, SUB-BEAT OFFICER, KATRA SUB- BEAT PATNACITY FOREST EXTENSION RANGE, PATNA R/O NANDGAON, SEIKHPURA, PATNA. --------------------------(Appellants) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BALDEO SINGH S/O LATE SARDAR GYAN SINGH SAW MILL, KANKARBAGH, PATNA, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT- PATNA. -----------------------(Respondents) ************ For the Petitioner : SARVENDRA KUMAR VERMA ADV. For OPPT. PARTY-2 : CHANDRA MOHAN ADV. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 19.9.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna in complaint case no. 1998 (C) of 2003, T.R. No. 1516 of 2003 by which cognizance for the offences under Sections 379, 384, 504 and 120-B I.P.C. has been taken. 2 2. By an order dated 28.11.2005 notices were issued to the opposite party no. 2 with a further direction to stay the proceedings in the court below. Thereafter on 1.3.2006 the matter was admitted for hearing pending which the stay was to continue. Today the parties have appeared before this court to make rival contentions. 3. The opposite party no. 2 in his complaint dated 8.9.2003 has alleged that the accused persons came upon his saw mill and the accused no. 1 to 7 demanded illegal gratification. On 7.9.2003 the accused persons again came and stated that had he paid illegal gratification, the truck loaded with wood seized on 29.8.2003 would not have been done. The complainant therefore alleged that the accused persons were liable for prosecution. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that fact of the matter is that on 30.8.2003 an information was received that a truck bearing no. B.R.I.G. 5482 on which wood from suspicious sources was transported and was being unloaded at the complainant’s Saw Mill. Therefore the truck and the wood pieces were seized by the forest department official. A report about this was also made, which is evident from annexure no. 6. Pursuant to the prosecution having been launched upon the opposite party no. 2 he chose to file this frivolous complaint for reasons of malice more than a week later alleging as aforesaid. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the order of cognizance is completely valid and the petitioner no. 2 had filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, which he withdrew and therefore this quashing application was not maintainable. 3 4. On going through the documents contained herein, I am of the view that following the dictate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in cases of malicious prosecution the court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I am inclined to allow this application. More so because the complaint evidently has been filed as a backlash to the actions taken by the forest department against the complainant. In a similar situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 2010 page 209 quashed the proceedings since the complaint had been filed by one of the guarantors after steps had been taken by bank officials against him. 5. In view of such, the entire proceedings including order dated 19.9.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna in complaint case no. 1998 (C) of 2003, T.R. No. 1516 of 2003 by which he has taken cognizance is hereby quashed. 6. Application stands allowed. ( Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 14th July, 2010 NAFR/ Fahad.