IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25276 of 2006 1. Guriya Devi @ Poonam Lata, Wife of Dhananjay Sao 2. Dhananjay Sao, Son of Lal Babu Sah 3. Bhagwati Devi, W/o Yamuna Sharma 4. Prayag Choudhary, S/o Late Shree Choudhary, 5. All resident of mohalla East Lohanipur, P.S. Kadamkuan, District Patna ……. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Nandu Sao, Son of Late Mahangu Sao of village Harnaut, P.S. Harnaut, District – Nalanda …. Opp. Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Praveen Kumar., Advocate O R D E R The four petitioners who are arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 1063(C) of 2005 have prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom including order dated 16.2.2006 passed therein by Sri Manoj Kumar Ray, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biharsharif, whereby he has taken cognizance under sections 323 and 379 IPC against the petitioners. The aforesaid complaint was filed by one Nandu Sao, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, on 5.10.2005 inter alia 2 stating therein that on 27.9.2005 at about 6 P.M. while the complainant was in his shop at Harnaut Bazar, the four petitioners came to his shop and requested him to compromise the case which had been lodged by his daughter and that he should, for the said purpose go to the office of one Dipak Kumar Rastogi, Advocate, at Biharsharif who had summoned them for reconciliating the matter. It is alleged that the complainant took out Rs. 10000/- and accompanied the petitioners who informed him that their car was waiting near the Kali Mandir and along with the accused he went to the place where the car was waiting. It is further alleged that as soon as he reached near the car two unknown persons armed with pistols jumped out and touching the pistol at his temple forced him into the car and the four petitioners followed into the car. It is also alleged that petitioner Dhananjay Sao took out the cash of Rs. 10000/- from his pocket and Guria Devi snatched his golden chain worth Rs. 10000/- even as Bhagwanti Devi took away his gold ring worth Rs. 3000/- and Prayag Choudhary snatched his watch worth Rs. 800/- The two unknown accused assaulted him on the head with the butts of their pistols and the four petitioners assaulted him with slaps and fists. It is said that the witnesses accompanying the complainant did not take any step out of fear of the pistols being carried by the two unknown persons. 3 The submissions on behalf of the petitioners is that they have been falsely implicated in this case by way of a counter blast to the Complaint Case No. 1935(C) of 2004 filed by petitioner no. 2 on 17.8.2004 against O.P. No. 2 and others. It is also submitted that petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 are witnesses in the said complaint. It was also submitted that the falsity of the case would be apparent from the fact that the story propounded by the complainant by itself appears to be absurd. In this context it was submitted that according to the complaint petition the occurrence is said to have taken place from 6 P.M. on 27.9.2005 up till 4.10.2005 near the Kalisthan on the main Ranchi Road and yet the incident referred to in the recital in the body of the complaint petition relates to an occurrence taking place only at 6 P.M. on 27.9.2005. There is also no explanation as to why the complaint was filed on 5.10.2005 when the occurrence allegedly took took place on 27.9.2005. It was also sought to be submitted that the story propounded by the complainant is more or less similar to the story propounded by petitioner no. 2 in the complaint filed by him being Complaint Case No. 1935 of 2004. The learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 made a valid attempt to justify the impugned order. I am not impressed by the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. . 4 From the perusal of the complaint petition the story propounded by the complainant appears to be a frivolous one which no person in his senses would accept to be a bona fide one. In the facts and circumstances of the case the continuance of the proceeding against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly the impugned order as also the criminal proceeding is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated : The 18th of August, 2009 Sanjay Pd./A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)