IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15499 of 2008 1. AMARJIT KAUR, W/O BHAGAN SINGH DHIR @ PACHAN SINGH 2. BHAJAN SINGH @ PACHAN SINGH, S/O LATE AATAMA SINGH BOTH RESIDENT OF F.NO.114/115 LAJPAT NAGAR, P.S. LAJPAT NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110024. 3. JITENDRA SINGH BAMI @ JITENDRA KAUR, W/O SARDAR MANIDRA SINGH BAMI, RESIDENT OF H27 KOTHI NO.2 GALI NO.8, WESTERN AVENUE SAINIK FARM KHANPUR, NEW DELHI 110062. 4. MD. SURJIT KAUR, W/O LATE KAMALJIT SINGH 5. KARAN DIP SINGH, S/O LATE KAMALJIT SINGH. BOTH RESIDENT OF 217 B.K. CAMP, DHAKA VILLAGE NEAR OM DAIRY, NEW DELHI 110009. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. DAVINDRA KAUR @ SATNAM KAUR, D/O LATE BALWANTE, WIFE OF TEJPAL SINGH @ TEJPAL SINGH DHIR, RESIDENT OF BABAREKI GATE, P.S. CHOWK, DIST. PATNA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 3. 28.6.2010. Five petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 29.1.2008 passed by Sri D. Ram, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna city in Complaint Case No.660 of 2007. By the said order, the learned Magistrate, on the basis of complaint petition, after examination of complainant and four witnesses, has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 341, 504 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the petitioners to face trial. Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior 2 Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while pressing the petition, submits that the present complaint petition was filed maliciously against the petitioners, who are resident of Delhi. It was argued that opposite party no.2, who was wife of Tej Pal, son of petitioner nos.1 and 2, earlier had filed a criminal case against her husband and all the five petitioners vide Chowk P.S. Case No.149 of 2007 under Sections 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, allegation against the petitioners is that while the petitioners had appeared in a court at Patna city for executing bail bonds and they were returning, the complainant was abused and assaulted by all the accused persons. Learned Senior Counsel submits that for quashing the criminal case which was lodged against the petitioners and husband of the complainant two petitions were filed vide Cr. Misc. No.52222 of 2007 and Cr. Misc. No.53384 of 2007 and a Bench of this Court by its order dated 19.3.2010 has quashed the entire criminal proceeding of Chowk P.S. Case No.149 of 2007 except the case of husband of the complainant Tejpal Singh, who was not the 3 petitioner. On this strength, it was argued that even earlier prosecution was malicious and due to that reason it was quashed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that petitioner nos.1 and 2 are old persons and they were not in a position to indulge in such offence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to paragraph-11 of the petition to impress upon the court that all the petitioners were not in a position to indulge in such offence. In paragraph-11, it has been stated that petitioner no.4 is Mousi of the complainant and she was posted as Junior Judicial Assistant in Delhi High Court. Mr. Equbal Asif Neyazi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, submits that even prior to the filing of the present complaint petition, the brother of the complainant had filed an Informatory petition before S.H.O. Sarswati Police Station, New Delhi. He further submits that there is no point to challenge the order of cognizance on the ground of so called malicious prosecution. It was submitted that occurrence was witnessed by several independent witnesses and, accordingly, at 4 the enquiry stage, altogether four witnesses were examined, who had categorically supported the case of the complainant. It was further argued that at this initial stage, this Court may not interfere with the case. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has also opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials available on record. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of cognizance. It is opinion of this Court that Code of Criminal Procedure is a self contained Code and there is already remedy available in the Code to the petitioners and as such, at this initial stage of cognizance, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the order of cognizance. The order of cognizance was passed in the month of January,2008. This Court is of the opinion that it is not an exceptional case warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. It is made clear that rejection of 5 Md.S. the petition will not prejudice either of the parties since this Court has rejected the present petition mainly on the ground that there is already remedy available in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of rejection of this petition, the order of stay dated 19.9.2008 stands automatically vacated. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)