IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4075 of 2002 1. RAM CHARITRA PRASAD, SON OF SRI LALTA PRASAD SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-ABGIL, P.S.-KORMA IN THE DISTRICT OF SHEKHPURA. 2. JAY BAHADUR SINGH, SON OF SRI SHEOPUJAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BAGHI, P.S.-SAHAR IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR. …………Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DINESH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI JAGDISH SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-CLUB ROAD, ARRAH, P.S.-ARA NAWADAH IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR. ………Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. For the State : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 10 11.02.2011 The complainant Dinesh Kumar Singh is an advocate clerk who is involved in three cases Ara Nawada P.S. Case No.25 of 1994, Ara Nawada P.S. Case No.37 of 1995 and Ara Nawada P.S. Case No.223 of 1996. The allegation against the petitioners who are the officer-in- charge of Ara Nawada Police Station and Sub-Inspector of the police station, is that these two officers while investigating the aforesaid three criminal cases had come to the house of the complainant on various occasions and lastly while investigating Ara Nawada P.S. Case No.223 of 1996 had abused the complainant as well his son while arresting him, and kept him in illegal detention, so that his injuries would not be apparent to the C.J.M. on his production within 24 hours of arrest as required under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been alleged that while searching the house or while conducting the raid the officers had also snatched away a ring worth Rs. 2500/- and a sum of Rs.50/- Counsel for the petitioners submit that on the plain reading of the complaint petition it is apparent that reference has been made to the 2 criminal cases, in which the son of the complainant was involved, which would indicate the malicious intention of the complainant in instituting the complaint petition. It would appear that the complainant is trying to create defence for his son and is trying to also prejudice the court into believing that the officer-in-charge has targeted the son of the petitioner, on the basis of the fact that the complainant himself is an advocate’s clerk. On the plain reading of the complaint petition it is apparent to this Court that the two accused persons have deliberately made allegations against the petitioner, so that they may create some sort of defence in their favour. If the son of the complainant had any grievance against the officer-in-charge or the Sub-Inspector, who had arrested him they could have made the statement in court in the police cases when they were produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I, therefore, find that the case instituted is motivated by obvious consideration and is unbelievable. Accordingly, I quash the order dated 19.12.2000 passed in Case no.883C of 1996 / T.R. No.1083A of 2001. This application is accordingly allowed. PN ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)