IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37185 of 2007 1. Ravindra Narayan Agrawal ,Son of Late Bishundeo Narayan Agrawal, 2. Jitendra Narayan Agrawal, Son of Ravindra Narayan Agrawal, both residents of Mungeriganj, Presently residing at 36, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 3. Sandip Kumar, Son of Suresh Kunwar, resident of Village-Itwa, Police Station-Begusarai Mufassil, District-Begusarai. ------------------------- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Govind Singh, Son of Late Tarni Singh, resident of Village- Bahadarpur, Police Station-Begusarai Mufassil, District-Begusarai. --------------------------- Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : None. ----------- O R D E R The three petitioners, who have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No.1 ( C) of 2007, have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 25.7.2007 passed therein by Sri Harish Chandra Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 147,427 and 323 I.P.C. against the petitioners and has summoned them. It appears that the complainant, Govind Singh, impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2 , filed the aforesaid complaint on 2.1.2007 inter alia alleging that on 30.12.2006 while he was working in the fields of his master, Rajiv Kumar Agrawal, petitioner no.1 , the uncle of his master, with the son , petitioner no.2, as also petitioner no.3 along with 8 -10 unknown others variously armed with Khanti came - 2 - over and whereas petitioner no.3 took out a pistol from his waist and threatened the complainant to run away from the field, failing which , he would be killed. The unknown persons accompanying the petitioners took away 3-4 bags of fertilizers which were kept in the field. It is said that the complainant informed his master over the telephone. Following the information given the staff of his master came over to the place of occurrence but before he could reach the place, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 instigated their men to break the south eastern portion of the boundary wall and when the same was objected to by staff members of his master, a scuffle ensued and they were assaulted. Petitioner no.2 is alleged to have threatened them with dire consequence as he claimed himself to be a member of the Indian Administrative Service. It has also been alleged that the accused persons damaged the boundary wall some 25-30’ in length and five feet in height thereby causing loss of Rs.5000/- and some standing crops were also said to have been damaged. It is said that at the time of the occurrence, the master of the complainant had gone out of Bihar with his family for medical treatment and taking advantage of their absence the accused persons caused the occurrence. It is also said that the neighbours who had witnessed the occurrence left the place out of fear. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that although cognizance was taken under Sections 147,427 and 323 I.P.C. , the cognizance taking court did not find any offence under Section 379 I.P.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act to have been made - 3 - out against the petitioners .It has further been submitted that from a bare perusal of the complaint petition it would appear that the said case has been filed against the petitioners on false and frivolous grounds and the story propounded by itself appears to be most improbable which no prudent person would ever believe. It has further been submitted that it would appear from the complaint petition itself that the said occurrence took place in respect of land appertaining to Khata No.112, Khesra No.608 and admittedly , several civil proceedings were initiated in respect of the said land and in all those litigations it was petitioner no.1 who had succeeded and it was by reason thereof that the master of the complainant who happens to be the nephew of petitioner no.1 and cousin of petitioner no.2, had managed to get the proceeding initiated. As a matter of fact, it has been submitted that due to the dispute over the land in question, the three petitioners had got initiated a proceeding under Section 147 Cr.P.C., wherein the master of the complainant filed an application to be impleaded as an intervener notwithstanding the fact that he had no locus standi to appear in the said case. It was further submitted that the oblique motive of the master of the complainant is writ large in the story propounded and it is apparent that the same is only for the purpose of harassing and vexing the petitioners and allowing the proceeding to continue would only amount to an abuse of the process of the court. I have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate who from perusal of the complaint petition, the statement - 4 - of the complainant on S.A. and the evidence of his witnesses came to the finding that a prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioners was made out . However, he has not stated what those materials are, which compelled him to take cognizance for the offences. Even the deposition of the witnesses and the statement of the complainant on S.A. has not been filed and one is left to case as to what the materials which prompted the court to take cognizance. In the result this application succeeds and the impugned order is hereby quashed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court, Patna Dated : the 13th August,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.