Criminal Miscellaneous No.4637 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -------------- MADAN MOHAN PRASAD , Son of Ram Ratan Prasad, resident of Village- Bishambharpur, P.S. Bishambharpur in the district of Gopalganj ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ram Sagar Prasad, Son of Shiv Rag Bhagat, resident of Village and P.S. Bishambharpur District-Gopalganj --------------- Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioner : S/Sri Ashutosh Jha Narendra Pandey Bijay Kant Mishra,Advocates For the State : Sri Abhimanyu Sharma, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : Sri H.P. Singh, Advocate. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.12.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No.1708 of 1998( Trial No.1385 of 1998). By the said order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offence under Section 323,342 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It has been alleged by the complainant in its complaint petition that while he was cultivating the brinjal plants over his plot, six accused persons arrived and destroyed the brinjal plants and on protest the complainant was assaulted by the accused persons with lathi. He alleged in the complaint petition that in the said occurrence his wrist 2 watch for an amount of Rs.500/- was forcibly taken by the accused persons and due to destruction of the cultivated field he suffered a loss of Rs.200/-. 3. Sri Ashutosh Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that the present complaint petition has been maliciously filed by the complainant. He tried to impress upon the court, while referring to Annexures to the petition ,he submits that by registered sale deed the father of the complainant had already transferred the said land to the petitioner. He further submits that after examination of the complainant on S.A., one witness, namely, Prabhu Nath Prasad was examined in support of the complainant. He submits that the witness Prabhu Nath Prasad was in litigation terms with the petitioner and his family and due to that reason the said witness has given false evidence before the court and, as such, false prosecution has been initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1972 SC 470 ( Rajendra Nath Mahto Vrs. T.Ganguly). While referring to paragraph 11 of the said Judgment, he submits that this Court has got ample power to examine the documents, which have been annexed with the present petition. Learned counsel has also relied upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court , reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 ( State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors.). While referring to paragraph 108 of the said Judgment, he submits that the present case comes within the categories of cases, which have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He 3 submits that the present case is a malicious prosecution and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside on this ground only. 4. Sri H.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance even on the basis of petition filed before it or even on oral complaint. 6. Sri Abhimanyu Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, submits that on the basis of materials available before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate had no option but to take cognizance. While taking cognizance on the basis of materials available on the record, he was required to see only those documents, which were brought by the complainant. Since the material was sufficient to indicate commission of the offences, as alleged in the complaint petition, the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance, has committed no mistake. He further submits that at the initial stage it would not be appropriate to interfere with the criminal proceeding. 7. I have also examined the materials available on the record as well as the impugned order. On perusal of the complaint petition, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner regarding title over the land on the basis of a copy of the sale deed, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the petition, has got no relevance with the allegation made by the complainant. The complaint petition was not primarily filed for deciding title or possession over the land in question. 4 In the complaint petition, it was specifically alleged that the complainant was assaulted by the accused persons. Moreover, while hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would not be advisable to look into those documents, which have been annexed with the petition, which has not been proved through process of law. So far as Rajendra Nath Mahto’s case ( Supra) is concerned, I am of the view that it is not in dispute that this Court has got power to examine such document. Such document is to be looked into only in peculiar facts and circumstances of a case. So far as the present case is concerned, those documents, which have been annexed, cannot be looked into at this stage. It can be said that it is defence of the petitioner and such document, on which the petitioner has relied, can be looked into at the appropriate stage before the trial court. So far Bhajanlal’s case (Supra) is concerned, in paragraph 109 of its Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear that of course in the case, which have been categorized in paragraph 108 of the Judgment, the Court can interfere with the matter, but at the same time the Supreme Court has held that this power is to be exercised in exceptional and rarest of rare cases. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find the present case as exceptional and rarest of rare cases. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition and the petition stands rejected. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 8th April,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J ) 5