IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6345 of 2000 HARI PRAKASH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 1.7.2010. Heard. The proceeding is sought to be quashed which was initiated by an order dated 27.2.1998 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna who took cognizance of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 379 of the Penal Code on receipt of the police report of facts allegedly constituting those offences. The petitioner was summoned by the above order. The basis for launching the prosecution is the written complaint petition bearing no.902C of 1997 stating, inter-alia, that there was a promise held out by the petitioner to the complainant that after demolishing the building he would create a multi storied apartment and provide appropriate space for the complainant, a practicing advocate, for setting up his office. The petitioner is alleged to have breached the promise and in spite of several requests he did not provide the space to the complainant. The complainant filed a suit before the learned Munsif, Patna and filed a petition under Order - 2 - 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an interim injunction against the petitioner not to demolish or damage the office of the complainant but, in spite of an order to maintain status quo allegedly passed by the learned Munsif the office of the complainant was demolished and valuables of the complainant were removed. It may be noted that those allegations have a background which are stated in some initial paragraphs of the complaint which this court’s refrains from bringing on record only for the reasons that the court respects the profession and bringing those allegations on record would simply diminish them in the public estimates. The allegation and claim of the complainant which appears in the few initial paragraphs of his complaint, simply does not permit this Court to hold that the real intent behind filing of the complaint petition could be to seek justice. An impression gathered by the Court after perusing those statements that the real motive or purpose behind the filing of the complaint petition was to benefit illegally by putting criminal pressure upon the complainant so that he could yield to the pressure and do as desired - 3 - by the petitioner. It appears sufficiently giving clear inkling that the purpose of filing the complaint petition was more to spit at the petitioner and to harass him besides to humiliate him to the extent possible so that he parted with his property in favour of the complainant. The complaint was filed, more to gain wrongfully and illegally. The prosecution of the petitioner appears from mala fide and as such the same is quashed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )