IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2907 of 2008 PUSHPENDRA KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE NASIB SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BODH GAYA, P.O. & P.S. BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. TRIPTI NARAYAN JHA, SON OF LATE JAGNATH JHA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KASHIPUR, WARD NO. 11, SAMASTIPUR, P.S. & DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :- Mr. Ashwini Kr. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Advocate ----------- 6 31.3.2010 Heard the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 3.7.2001 under Sections 323, 379, 420, 406, 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur in Complaint Case No. 467 of 2001 giving rise to Trial No. 1443 of 2007. The short facts of the case is that the complainant alongwith P.Ws. 3 to 5 went to the house of Umesh Kumar Singh who promised to secure a job for the persons mentioned as witnesses 3 to 5. It is said that accused no. 1 and 4 were closely connected to the Chairman of the Bihar Public Service Commission. A demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- each was made. Accordingly Rs. 7,00,000/- was paid to Umesh Kumar Singh, Deepak Kumar and Nasib Singh and a receipt was prepared by Viresh Kumar Sinha who is witness in this case. After the publication of the results, the names of the persons who were paid the money did not find place amongst the list of persons appointed. The complainant and others approached P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 and they were told that their results will come out after one month. In the mean time, the Chairman of the Bihar Public Service Commission 2 was arrested and the accused no. 1 Umesh Kumar Singh informed the complainant and others that the appointment could not be possible due to the arrest of the Chairman and he promised to return Rs. 7,00,000/-. As far as this petitioner is concerned, there is no allegation that he was present when there was demand of making payment to secure a job, or at the time when the payment was actually made or at the time when there was a promise to get the results published after a period of one month or at the time when the accused persons promised to return the said Rs. 7,00,000/-. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of Umesh Kumar Singh and his role is some what vague and it is said that on 10.6.2001 he went along with the other accused persons and demanded the receipt and also there is an omnibus allegation using hard words and inflicting blows by fists and slaps. Against accused no. 1 Umesh Kumar Singh, it is said that he is said to have taken away a gold chain and Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant. The opposite party no. 2 has not appeared in this case despite repeated notices. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the complainant should be prosecuted in view of the fact that he was indulging in an illegal act of demanding bribe to secure a job for the persons mentioned in the complaint petition, which in itself, is an illegal act and payment of bribe is also punishable offence. It is also submitted that as far as this petitioner is concerned, there is no allegation regarding his involvement in the demand or payment of 3 bribe. In fact the allegation against the petitioner is vague and is not related to the actual offence. In the facts of this case, I find that the petitioner’s name has been dragged in this case without any reason. There is nothing in the entire F.I.R. to support the allegation that he was responsible for the offence under Sections 379, 420, 406, 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal. As far as section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is omnibus allegation and it is not clear as to whether anyone inflicted any injury on any of the persons. There is no likelihood that the petitioner would be punished as the allegations are vague as far as the petitioner is concerned. Considering that no offence is disclosed in the complaint petition as far as it concerns the petitioner Pushpendra Kumar Singh, I quash the order dated 3.7.2001 taking cognizance against the petitioner only. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)