Criminal Miscellaneous No.33386 OF 1999 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ UMESH PD. SINHA @ SINGH son of late Ram Kishore Prasad Singh, resident of mohalla Balughat, Police Station Town, Dist.-Muzaffarpur ….. ……Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Kameshwar Bhagat son of late Kishori Bhagat, resident of village-Rohua Rajaram, P.O. & P.S.-Mushari, Dist.-Muzaffarpur. …… ……Opp.Party. ------ For the petitioner: M/s Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr.Adv. Ritesh Kumar No.1, Ravi Kumar and Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Advs. For the State: Mrs. Indu Bala Pandedy, Addl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------ Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminl Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the entire prosecution in Complaint Case No.1385 of 1999/Trial No.747 of 1999 including the order dated 20.8.1999 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. By the said order learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence, transferred the case to Sri Parvez Alam, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class for enquiry and disposal under section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2, who claims to be resident of nearby Govt. Agriculture Farm situated at village-Rohua Rajaram, Police Station Mushari, 2 district- Muzaffarpur, filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.1385 of 1999 alleging therein that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 31st July, 1999 at about 1.00 P.M. he noticed that twelve accused persons, who were officers and employees of the agriculture farm, were committing offence of theft and due to their personal gain they were removing food grains from the agriculture farm. It was alleged that the complainant apprehended the accused persons and thereafter he went to the police station and filed a written report and since the police did not take any action on his report, he filed the complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur for the offences under sections 406, 420 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. After filing the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and he in his statement reiterated the allegation which was mentioned in the petition and thereafter three witnesses were examined in support of the complaint case during enquiry. Thereafter, by the impugned order the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case for enquiry and disposal. 3. Aggrieved with the order dated 20.8.1999 and initiation of prosecution against the petitioner in Complaint Case No.1385 of 1999, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present petition. This petition was admitted on 7.3.2000 and while admitting the case, notice was ordered to be issued to opposite party no.2 and it was further directed that during pendency of this application, further proceeding in the court below including the operation of the order dated 20.9.1999 passed by Sri 3 Perwej Alam, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No.1385/99 (Trial No.747/99), shall remain stayed. The order of stay is still continuing. 4. In this case despite valid service of notice, opposite party no.2 has not chosen to appear before the court and, as such, at the time of hearing none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. 5. Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was an officer of Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar and at the relevant time he was posted as District Zonal Officer, Muzaffarpur. He submits that the complaint petition itself appears to be false. On perusal of the complaint petition, he submits, it will be evident that the complainant without having any connection with the farm in question had filed the complaint, which is not believable. In the complaint petition he had made accused right from Joint Director of the Farm to the Driver, Chaukidar and Peon of Mushari Farm. It was argued that there was no entrustment by the complainant in favour of the petitioner or to any of the accused mentioned in the complaint petition and in absence of any entrustment, no offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. He also submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, neither section 420 nor section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is applicable. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the statement made in different paragraphs of the petition, submits that agriculture produce of 4 Mushari Farm was sold on approved rate after the decision was taken by the competent authority and the department has not suffered any loss. He submits that in course of business transaction the agriculture produce were sold and for that very purpose the decision was taken by the competent authority. He further submits that if such complaint is allowed to proceed, it would be difficult for a public servant to discharge his official duty honestly and diligently. Accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 29.8.1999 and the entire prosecution in Complaint Case No.1385 of 1999/Trial No.747 of 1999. 6. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the complaint petition as well as lower court record, which was received as per earlier order of the court. On perusal of the materials available on record, I am of the view that such petition should be discouraged. The complainant without having any connection with the business affairs of Mushari Agriculture Farm made a vague allegation in the complaint petition and similarly the witnesses were examined, who during enquiry had made a vague assertion in support of the complainant. On the basis of such assertion it would not be proper to proceed against any of the accused persons. Before this court, only one accused has come, who was holding a responsible post in the 5 agriculture department. In such a situation, particularly in view of the contents of the complaint petition, I am of the considered view that the complaint petition was required to be out rightly rejected. However, the learned Magistrate in a mechanical way has proceeded against the accused persons particularly the petitioner before this court and, as such, the order of cognizance is liable to be rejected. 8. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 20.8.1999 passed in Complaint Case No.1385 of 1999 as well as all the subsequent proceedings so far as the petitioner is concerned is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court The 18th May, 2010 NAFR/Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)