CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32219 OF 2001 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- HARI SHANKAR PRASAD SON OF LATE SUDAMA SAO, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA S.D.O. ROAD, HAJIPUR, P.S. HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI, AT PRESENT TRAINING OFFICER, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPOMENT SCHEME, INDRA BHAWAN, PATNA-1. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BHUNESHWAR RAM SON OF LATE BABUAN RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARHARA, P.S. NAUHATTA, DISTRICT SAHARSA, AT PRESENT REVENUE CLERK, KAHARA CIRCLE, P.S. AND DISTRICT SAHARSA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr.Adv. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, 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 22.9.2001 passed by Sri Ram Chandra, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Saharsa in Complaint Case No.400 C of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, which was numbered 2 as Complaint case No.400 C of 2000. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that on 15.6.2000, the complainant, who was Halka Karamchari under the petitioner, who was Circle Officer, called the complainant at his residence and thereafter, he threatened and abused and also assaulted the petitioner. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner had committed offence under Sections 341, 323, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After filing the complaint, enquiry was conducted and thereafter, by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence only under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 24.5.2002, while issuing notice to opposite party no.2, this Court directed that the proceeding of the case in the court below shall remain stayed for three months and thereafter, on 23.9.2002, the case was admitted and Lower Court Record was called for. 4. Shri Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3 petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance as well as initiation of proceeding in Complaint Case No.400 C of 2000, has argued that the complaint petition was filed maliciously and with oblique motive. It was submitted that the complainant was posted as Halka Karamchari under the petitioner. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was Circle Officer. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to Annexure-2 to the petition, which is a typed copy of letter dated 17.2.2000, which was addressed to the Election Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Saharsa. In the said letter, it was alleged that the complainant and other persons, some of them were examined as enquiry witness on behalf of the complainant, had forcibly put lock in the office and thereafter, they had put hindrance in the official work as well as in election work. It was further submitted that keeping in view the conduct of the complainant and some other persons, which were not up to the mark, the petitioner had reported on 14.3.2000, which is Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit, filed on 24.8.2010. The petitioner had reported against the complainant. Learned Senior Counsel has also referred to Annexure-4 to the petition, which is a copy of office order issued by the District 4 Magistrate, Saharsa. By order dated 22.3.2000, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the complainant. It was argued that since the complainant was habitual in committing dereliction of his duty and the petitioner time without number had reported for taking action against the complainant and on the basis of report of the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the complainant. In retaliation, the present complaint was filed against the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the contents of the complaint petition, has also argued that the allegation made in the complaint petition appears to be not probable. On aforesaid ground, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 22.9.2001. 5. Shri Dhurendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that on perusal of the complaint petition itself, a prima facie case is made out and on the basis of materials on record brought, during the enquiry, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the order of cognizance. 5 6. Shri A.M.P. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has supported the stand taken by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. It is true that at the time of hearing, it is not required to look into those documents, which have not been proved through process of law, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present petition, I have perused those materials particularly Annexure-4, which is an order issued by the District Magistrate, Saharsa. On the basis of materials on record, the court is satisfied that since the petitioner being Circle Officer, had time without number reported against the complainant, the complainant, with a view to take revenge against the petitioner, had filed the present complaint maliciously. Besides this, the allegation made in the complaint petition also appears not to be probable. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances, the court is satisfied that the present complaint petition was initiated by opposite party no.2- complainant maliciously and with oblique motive. 6 9. Accordingly, the court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and the order of cognizance dated 22.9.2001 passed by Sri Ram Chandra, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Saharsa in Complaint Case No.400 C of 2000 is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 26.8.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.