IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1700 of 2008 RAM PAVITRA JHA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5 4.5.2010 The petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, Samastipur in C.R.No.853 of 2007, T.R.No.3292 of 2007 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under sections 323, 406 and 379 of the Penal Code. It is alleged by the Complainant-Opposite party no.2 that he had gone to the shop of the petitioners for purchasing cement and one tailor sand. The price of the materials was finalized at Rs.3,000/-. The complainant paid the aforesaid amount to the accused petitioners and asked for the receipt. This infuriated the accused petitioners and it is alleged that at the behest of petitioner no.1 Ram Pavitra Jha, petitioner nos.2 and 3 assaulted him with fists and slaps. It is further alleged that petitioner no.2 Devendra Jha snatched Rs.500/- and petitioner no.3 Ravindra Jha @ Ravindra Kumar snatched wrist watch of the complainant. The petitioners submit that even assuming the prosecution case to be true, there is no allegation that petitioner no.1 either assaulted the complainant or snatched any money or any other materials from the complainant. They further submit that in fact petitioner no.1 and his accused sons namely petitioner nos.2 and 3 have been implicated in this case by the complainant in order to take 2 vengeance from them in view of the earlier complaint lodged against him by the accused side. The petitioners submit that on 19.9.2007, vide Annexure-2, the petitioner no.1 hade made a complaint against the complainant- Mukhiya against irregularities in the sale of fertilizers, sand, stone chips etc. The petitioners submit that the brother of the complainant became infuriated on account of this complaint and he assaulted the accused side as a result of which F.I.R. being Rosera P.S. Case No.156 of 2007 was instituted against the complainant’s brother by petitioner no.2. Thus, in order to take vengeance from petitioner no.2, the complainant has filed the instant complaint case. Petitioner no.1, aged about 70 years, who happens to be the father of petitioner no.2, has also been made an accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this court in exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the vexatious prosecution. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs State of A.P. & Ors, 2009 Cri. L.J. 350. It appears that no allegation of assault or snatching of any money or materials has been made against petitioner no.1 Ram Pavitra Jha, who happens to be the father of petitioner nos.2 and 3. In this view of the matter, I do not find that there is sufficient material for proceeding against petitioner no.1 under sections 323, 406 and 379 of the Penal Code. The prosecution against him is accordingly quashed. The petitioner nos.2 and 3 refers to Annexures-2 and 3 in order to support that on account of earlier complaint filed by them, the 3 KHAN instant case has been filed by the complainant against them. The submission of the petitioners may not be looked into by this court at this stage. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order of the court taking cognizance against petitioner nos.2 and 3 under aforesaid sections. This application, so far as petitioner nos.2 and 3 are concerned, is dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are willing to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant. However, dismissal of this application against petitioner nos.2 and 3 would not come in the way of the parties to arrive at compromise. In case such a compromise is filed by the parties, the learned Magistrate would dispose of the case in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties within four weeks from the date of filing of the compromise. In the result, this application is partly allowed. (S.P.Singh,J)