CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13 OF 2003 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- VINAY KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE SHEO NANDAN PRASAD SINGH OF VILLAGE POLIAR, P.S. SAHDAI BUJURG, DISTRICT VAISHALI AT PRESENT POSTED AS LOAN OFFICER IN THE HEAD OFFICE OF BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK, BUDHA MARG, PATNA. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. YOGENDRA SINGH SON OF LATE BHAGWAN SINGH, VILLAGE LAKHIBAGH, P.S. MASAURHI, DISTRICT PATNA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Umeshwar Pd. Singh,Adv. For O.P. No.2 : None For the State : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. The petitioner, who was an Officer of the Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and Certificate Officer under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash of an order dated 26.8.2002 passed by Shri P.N.Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1467(C) of 2001. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence 2 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against accused persons including the petitioner. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.1467(C) of 2001, against five accused persons including the petitioner on allegation of commission of offences by accused persons under Sections 331, 323, 343, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It was alleged in the complaint petition that accused persons had persuaded the complainant to apply for loan from the Bank and thereafter, Rs.75,000/- was sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the complainant. It was alleged that some instalment was due. However, on false pretext, the complainant was asked to come to the Bank and thereafter, the complainant was illegally detained. It has also been alleged that accused persons named in the complaint petition particularly Accused No.5, namely, Bijendra Prasad, who was Assistant in the Bank, had forcibly taken out Rs.340/- from 3 the pocket of the complainant and thereafter, he was taken into custody and forwarded to Beur Jail. Subsequently, he was compelled to clear the entire loan amount and only thereafter, he could be released from the custody. On aforesaid allegation, the complaint was filed. After filing the complaint, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of the complaint case, two witnesses were examined as enquiry witnesses, who supported the stand of the complainant. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order i.e. order dated 26.8.2002, has taken cognizance of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for summoning all the accused persons including the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 3.9.2003, while issuing notice to opposite party no.2, this Court directed that in the meantime, further proceeding pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1467(C) of 2001 shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 4 9.8.2004, the petition was admitted for hearing. It was directed that during the pendency of this application, interim order of stay granted on 3.9.2003 shall continue. The order of stay is still continuing. Despite the fact that opposite party no.2 has entered his appearance through advocate, at the time of hearing of the present petition, none appeared on his behalf. 4. Shri Umeshwar Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.l1467(C) of 2001, has raised several pleas. It was submitted that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was Certificate Officer and a certificate proceeding was initiated against the complainant vide Certificate Case No.783 of 2001. In the said certificate proceeding, notices were validly served on opposite party no.2-complainant. Learned counsel has referred to Annexures-3 and 4 to the petition to show that the notice was received by the complainant himself. It has further been submitted that even after acceptance of 5 notice in the certificate case neither the complainant filed any objection under Section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act nor he took any step to clear the dues of the Bank. Subsequently, under the provisions contained in Rule 53 of the Public Demand Recovery Act, the complainant was taken into custody and forwarded to Jail. It has further been submitted that only after being detained in the certificate proceeding, the opposite party no.2-complainant cleared the dues of the Bank and thereafter, the complainant was released from the custody. It has been argued that after being released from the custody, the complainant has filed the present complaint maliciously against the petitioner and others. A plea has been taken by the petitioner that under the provisions contained in Section 66 of the Public Demand Recovery Act, the petitioner being Certificate Officer, was not liable to be prosecuted for an action which he had taken in the certificate proceeding in accordance with law. He has submitted that it is not in dispute that the complainant was a certificate debtor and as such whatever 6 action was taken by the petitioner was taken in the capacity of Certificate Officer. Accordingly, it has been prayed to set aside the order of cognizance as well as entire proceeding in Complaint case No.1467(C) of 2001. 5. Shri Nityanand Tiwary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. On the basis of averment made in the complaint petition and materials available on record, the court is satisfied that prosecution of the petitioner on such a complaint was un- warranted rather it was filed maliciously by the opposite party no.2. The petitioner was a Certificate Officer and he was doing statutory duty, while proceeding with the certificate case, which was initiated against the opposite party no.2. The complainant had taken loan from the Bank and as such being Certificate Officer, he had rightly taken steps and only after taking steps, the public 7 money could be recovered from the opposite party no.2. The court is of the view that it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 26.8.2002 passed in Complaint Case No.1467(C) of 2001 by Shri P.N. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna as well as entire criminal proceeding so far petitioner is concerned, is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 17.9.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.