IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24076 of 2002 1. CHANDRA KISHORE YADAV, SON OF CHEDI YADAV. 2. RAM CHANDRA YADAV, SON OF GIRANAND YADAV. PETITIONER NO. 1 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAIKPAR AND PETITIONER NO. 2 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAHARIYA, BOTH P.S. BHARGAMA, DISTRICT ARARIA. -- --- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SRI AJIT KUMAR OJHA, C.J.M., ARARIA ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 5 1.7.2011 The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria dated 27.6.2002 passed in Complaint Case No. 168 of 2002 by which he has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 193 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, by instituting a case under Section 195(1)(B)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That one Kaushalya Devi instituted a complaint case 1142(c) of 202 against three persons namely Prithvi Chand Yadav, Sujit Kumar and Chandeshwari Yadav under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. On 27.6.2002 the complainant filed two petitions before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria. In the first petition she has stated that the petitioners had told her that they would make arrangement that she should receive the monetary benefits under the literacy programme and for that purpose she signed on a blank paper. Later she came to know that a case had been instituted against three persons. She consulted her husband and other family members and learnt that the three accused persons had a good reputation in the area and the petitioners had taken advantage of her financial condition to take vengeance on 2 the accused persons in the case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. In the second petition she filed that she wants to withdraw the case as it is absolutely false. By the impugned order, the Court has noted that Kaushalya Devi had been examined on S.A. She has stated that the person who had got her to sign the paper which was allegedly converted into a complaint case had promised to get her job as an Anganwari Sevika. The Court dropped the proceeding but ordered for a complaint to be filed against Kaushalya Devi and these two petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that no case is made out under Sections 193 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted that the facts disclose that the petitioners have not made any false statement in Court, nor have they filed an affidavit in any proceeding in the Court and as such they cannot be convicted under Sections 193/195 or any other section of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the statement of Kaushalya Devi in the two petitions filed by her, it is alleged that the petitioners were responsible and had engineered the filing of the complaint case. It is submitted that these petitioners cannot form the basis of conviction. It is an admitted fact that Kaushalya Devi filed a case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. On S.A. she did not support the prosecution case and further filed two affidavits stating that she had been misled and tricked into filing the complaint case because of the false promises made by these two petitioners. This 3 Court is well aware that these two petitioners did not give anything in writing in the Court however, the allegations in the petition discloses that they were the persons behind filing of the criminal case, so much so that the lady alleges that her husband was also unaware of the fact that she had filed a complaint case in the Court. These petitioners may not be directly involved under Sections 195, 200, 201 and 203 of the Indian Penal Code but most certainly an office is prima facie made out under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The institution of a case making allegations, which are punishable under the Indian Penal Code is a serious business. The purposes of establishing Courts to deal with in criminal matters is to ensure that the guilty are punished and the innocent are left free, but nobody, should be allowed to take the proceedings of the Court lightly and thereby restrict the freedom and dignity of any human being. The harassment of an individual who has to face false and such demeaning allegations can only be imagined and such persons should be dealt with severity, if in case it is found in trial that they had deliberately instituted a false case or were responsible for instigating others to do so. This application is thus, dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)