IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2883 of 2009 MANAN RAM, SON OF SHRI ATMA RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AMBARI, P.S. RAGHUNATHPUR, DISTRICT- SIWAN -------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHRI JAPILDEO RAY, SON OF LATE HUKUM RAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MADHUBAN SURAJ, P.S. SAHEBGANJ, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR……. OPP. PARTIES ----------- 6 11-8-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2, the complainant. 2. Through this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner has prayed for quashing of complaint case no. C- 662/2007 ( T.R. No. 4180/08) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist. Class, Muzaffarpur and also the order of cognizance passed in that case on 29-8-2008 pursuant to which summons were issued upon the petitioner in respect of offences under sections 323/504 of the I.P.C. 3. Petitioner is an officer of Bihar Administrative Service and at the relevant time he was posted as Circle Officer/ Block Development Officer, Sahebganj, in the district of Muzaffarpur. According to the complaint petition, the complainant has valid title and possession over a land, 2 which is adjacent to a pond comprising Khata No. 188, Khesra No. 203,204 and 2005, Old Kheshra No. 90 and 91. According to the complainant, this land is Bhind of the pond acquired by his father through settlement but by mistake it was entered in the name of “ Bihar Sarkar “ in the recent survey but the complainant allegedly got the entry corrected by Consolidation Authority and the land has been now shown in his name. In the complaint petition it is the precise case of the complainant that he received notice from the petitioner for appearance in his office on 16-5-2007 in spite of the complaiant himself having given a legal notice claiming the land in question on 9-5-2007. On 16-5-2007 the complainant reached the circle office then the petitioner who was the Block Development Officer got angry and told the complainant as to why legal notice had been sent by him. Allegedly the petitioner pushed the complainant out and as a result he fell down and thereafter on the order of the petitioner his servant pushed the complainant out of the office and the servant also allegedly took away rupees one thousand from his pocket. From the order sheet and documents annexed with the quashing application as well as document annexed 3 with the reply filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 it is manifest that with regard to the land in question a complaint had been made by the villagers that the land appertains to a public pond which was recorded in the name of the State in the old Cadastral Survey and also in the Revisional Survey. According to the villagers the complainant had raised a false claim of settlement of the concerned land. On receipt of such complaint an enquiry for the purpose of removal of encroachment appears to have been started leading to issuance of a notice by the petitioner to opposite party no.2 on 9-5-2007 asking the complainant to appear on 16-5-2007 in the office. It is also clear from the materials on record and documents produced by the complainant that prior to the occurrence he had given a legal notice to the petitioner, as well as to the Collector, Muzaffarpur on 9-5-2007 disclosing that he had already filed a title suit bearing no. 72 of 2007 before the Civil Court. He wanted the authorities to allow the complainant to continue in possession although there was no order of injunction or stay by the Civil Court. 4. In the aforesaid factual background learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present complaint 4 case is fit to be quashed by this Court in exercise of power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. because the case would fall in the 5th and 7th categories indicated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Bhajan Lal, AIR,1992 SC 604. For this purpose he has placed reliance upon paragraph 108 of that judgment. 5. In paragraph-108 the Apex Court has indicated that in the specified 7 category of cases the court may interfere to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court though it is not possible to lay down any flexible guidelines in such matter. Category 5 and 7 read as follows : Category :-5 “ Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.” Category :-7 “Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and / or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite 5 party no.2 has submitted that the criminal case has been lodged by the complainant with allegations, which have been supported by some witnesses and therefore, this court should allow the truth to be found out after trial and should not interfere in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. He has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vrs. Prakash P. Hinduja, (2003) 6 SCC 195. 7. The aforesaid case i.e. Union of India Vrs. Prakash P. Hinduja (supra) related to a case where the High Court had interfered with the criminal prosecution on the ground that C.B.I had filed charge-sheet without placing the same before Central Vigilance Commission. The Supreme Court held that such a ground was not germane to the exercise of inherent power and on such ground no interference should have been made by the High Court. The facts of that case are entirely different. So far as the present case is concerned on a careful perusal of the complaint petition it is found that the allegations are superfluous, almost frivolous and clearly the complainant did not want to participate in the enquiry 6 initiated at the instance of several villagers. The allegation of theft of money by the servant of the petitioner has not been accepted by the learned Magistrate as no cognizance has been taken under section 379 of the I.P.C. In the facts of the case, this court is satisfied that the complaint case requires to be quashed on the ground that the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable and that the present criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and has been instituted with an ulterior motive to prevent the petitioner from holding an impartial enquiry on the complaint lodged by the villagers. 8. This Court is further of the opinion that in the given facts and circumstances even if the allegations were true, the petitioner was working in his office in relation to an official matter hence the act of turning down the complainant from his office by the petitioner on account of some altercation would be inextricably related to his official duty. No criminal prosecution can be permitted without any sanction in such circumstances. Such protection to a Government Officer acting in discharge of his official duty 7 cannot be allowed to be circumvented by resorting to frivolous allegations like pushing. For the aforesaid reasons this application is allowed. The criminal prosecution noticed above is quashed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)