CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.14388 OF 2007 ----- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ----- Professor Dharm Prakash, son of Late Kuldeep Narayan University Professor and Head, Department of Chemistry, Patna University, Patna, Resident of Patnacity (Guljari Bazar) Professor’s Quarters, Science college Campus, P.S. Pirbahore Town and District-Patna. ……………………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Shri Shyam Lal Paswan, Son of Shir Bhadai Paswan, Resident of Village- Gijas, P.S. Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur. …………..Opposite Parties. ----- For the Petitioner :Miss. Soni Shirvastava, Advocate, Mr. Amit Prakash, Advocate, For O.P. No. 2 :Mr.Chakardhari Sharan Singh, Sr. Adv. For the State :Mr. Binod Kumar, A.P.P. ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. 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 an order dated 09.02.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 2540 of 2006/ T.R. No. 2013 of 2007. By the said order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(X) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2, who was a Rickshaw puller at Muzaffarpur, filed a Complaint Case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 2540 of 2006 against the petitioner. In the complaint, it was disclosed that the petitioner had 2 hired complainant’s rickshaw on 19.11.2006 at the rate of Rs. 40/- per hour. It was alleged that for the purpose of negotiation of marriage of his daughter, the petitioner had visited several places at Muzaffarpur occupying the rickshaw of the complainant. Subsequently, instead of giving Rs. 220/- to the complainant the petitioner paid only Rs. 150/-. On the objection raised by the complainant, it was alleged that the petitioner abused the complainant, addressing him by his caste name and also assaulted him. However, due to intervention of some people, the petitioner was stopped to further assault him. On aforesaid allegation complainant was filed and after conducting inquiry the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences as mentioned. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance the petitioner approached this Court by filing present petition. On 23.4.2007 while issuing notice to opposite party no. 2 it was directed that in the meantime further proceeding in Complaint Case No. 2540 of 2006 pending in the court of Sri Ashutosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur, shall remain stayed. On 30.04.2009 the case was admitted for hearing. Even at the time of hearing the opposite party no. 2 had appeared through his advocate. While admitting the case it was directed that in the meantime, the order of stay dated 23.04.2007 shall continue to operate. The order of stay is still continuing. 4. Miss. Soni Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance, firstly submitted that on perusal of the complaint petition, it is evident that 3 the allegation appears to be improbable. It was submitted that the petitioner is a Senior University Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry of Patna University and is resident of Patnacity, Patna. It was argued that it is not expected that a Senior Professor who hails from Patna will commit such offences in a different District i.e. Muzaffarpur that too with a Rickshaw Puller for a meagre amount. Secondly it has been argued that the present complaint was got filed by someone else. It has been submitted that it is not expected that a Rickshaw Puller without any aid and advice of affluent person can file such case and even he will pursue the complaint up to this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred several paragraphs of the petition, wherein it was alleged that since the petitioner has made complaint against one of the Professor of Patna University, the present complaint was got filed by the some person. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to annexure 7 to the supplementary affidavit i.e. an Informatory Petition filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was numbered as Informatory Petition No. 380(M) of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that through the Informatory petition, the petitioner had shown his apprehension that the false case may be got filed against him as per the instance of one Dr. Ramjatan Sinha who was University Professor, Department of Chemistry, in the same department where the petitioner was posted as Senior Professor. The said Dr. Ramjatan Sinha was also a leader of Lok Janshakti Party. On the aforesaid grounds it has been prayed to quash the order of cognizance. 4 5. Mr. Chakardhari Sharan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It has been submitted by Mr. Singh that the complainant has got no connection with said Professor. It was argued that the learned Magistrate after conducting inquiry and being fully satisfied with the prima facie case has passed the impugned order. According to Mr. Singh there is no defect in the order of cognizance. Learned Senior Counsel has also relied on the averment made by opposite party no. 2 in its counter affidavit filed in this case. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials on record. So far as the argument of Miss. Soni Shrivastava regarding false implication as per instance of one Dr.Ramjatan Sinha is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that in absence of Dr.Ramjatan Sinha, it would not be appropriate to record any positive finding on such averment. But the fact remains that the present complaint was filed by the Rickshaw Puller of Muzaffarpur against the petitioner, who hails from Patna and is a Senior Professor, Chemistry Department, Patna University. The petitioner has been made accused on allegation of making less payment to the rickshaw puller, who is opposite party no. 2 and on demand it was alleged that petitioner assaulted him and also abused and committed offences under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act. Prima facie the Court is satisfied that this allegation suffers from serious doubt. It is not expected that a Senior Professor can commit such offences that too far away from his own city. At the same time, it is also 5 difficult to perceive that a rickshaw puller on such allegation can firstly file the complaint and thereafter pursue the case up to this Court without any assistance, aid or advice by someone else. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the allegation made in complaint appears to be not probable and at the same time the prosecution of the petitioner has been initiated maliciously and on the ground of malicious prosecution as well as improbability of such offences, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for interfering with the order of cognizance. 7. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 9.2.2007 passed by Sri Ashutosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 2540 of 2006/ T.R. No. 2013 of 2007 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. (Rakesh Kumar,J.) Patna High Court, The 28th October, 2010, Bhardwaj/N.A.F.R.