IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30571 of 2007 KAVI PRIYA @ KAVI PRIYA SINHA, wife of Avinash Kumar, Resident of above Digha Cement Store, Digha Ghat, P.S. Digha, District-Patna at present posted as Child Development Project Officer, Rahui, District- Nalanda. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Bharat Paswan, son of Chando Paswan, resident of village-Amarpur-cum-Sahpur, P.S. Rahui, District- Nalanda. ----------- 6 16-02-2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Despite service of notice and filing of Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 no one has appeared. In this case order taking cognizance dated 31.1.2006 has been assailed by the petitioner, a Child Development Project Officer, on the ground that it is malicious prosecution. Counsel for the petitioner explains that from the narration in the complaint itself, it would be clear that wife of the complainant was an applicant for the post of Anganbari Sahayika and as she could not be selected, the present complaint was filed after more than three years of the selection process undergone and appointment made of another person. Counsel in this regard also submits that as against any such illegal selection the wife of the complainant being the applicant for the post of Anganbari Sahayik had a right to file representation before the Collector of the district as also could have preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner of the Collector of the district had rejected the prayer of wife of the complainant, but that having been not done, the present complaint 2 petition with regard to an incident of 27.6.2005 alleging certain assault or abuse by the petitioner would not stand scrutiny of a prudent mind and in fact such belated baseless allegations is both absurd as also inherently improbable. Counsel for the State, while trying to defend the impugned order, would submit that even though the background of the criminal case is appointment of wife of the Informant, but then there being specific allegation of assault and abuse against the petitioner this Court should not interfere in the impugned order taking cognizance. In the opinion of this Court, the criminal prosecution launched is out and out drenched with vengeance as would be apparent from paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of the complaint petition which reads as follows:- “2&;g fd vkt ls rhu o"kZ iwoZ izkFkhZ ds iapk;r esa vkWxuckM+h lgkf;dk dh fu;qfDr gksuh Fkh ftlds fy, izkFkhZ dh iRuh us vkosnu fn;k Fkk A 4&;g fd vkosnu nsus ds Ik’pkr~ ljdkjh fu;e ds vuqlkj vkWxuckM+h lgkf;dk ds p;u gsrq xkWo esa vke lHkk fnukad 19&01&2002 dk vk;kstu fd;k x;k rFkk lk{kkRdkj fy;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZ dh iRuh dk lHkh ”S{kf.kd ;ksX;rk laca/kh izek.k&i= dh tkWp dh xbZ] ftlesa vkosfndk dks lHkh n`f"Vdks.k ls lgh ekuk x;k A 5&;g fd yxHkx nks o"kZ ds Ik’pkr nks ekg iwoZ izkFkhZ dks Kkr gqvk fd mlds iapk;r esa vkWxuckM+h lgkf;dk gsrq fdlh nwljs o;fDr dk p;u gqvk gS tks gj n`f"Vdks.k ls v;ksX; gS rFkk og fuj{kj gS rFkk mlds ;gkW ljdkjh jde Hkh ckdh gS rFkk mldk uke xjhch js[kk dh lwph esa Hkh ugha gS rFkk p;u esa lHkh fu;eksa dh vuns[kh dh xbZ A” 3 In the light of this background relating to selection on the post of Anganbari Sahayika in the month of January, 2002 and the fact that within a period of next three years no protest was made by wife of the complainant as with regard to her being rejected and selection of some one else on the post of Anganbari Sahayika, it would be difficult to believe that only when legal notice was given on behalf of wife of the complainant, the petitioner had by way of retaliation indulged into an act of assault or abuse in the office premises of the petitioner on 27.6.2005. The background in which such complaint came to be filed with the allegations mentioned therein, would itself go to show that it was/is malicious prosecution launched only to black mail the petitioner holding the post of Child Development Project Officer. The known process of law having been not followed by wife of the complainant and that period of more than three years from the date of selection and appointment on the post of Anganbari Sahayika had been coolly allowed to elapse before bringing the allegations with regard to assault and abuse and that too in the office premises of the petitioner, are such continued links of chain which would make any prudent person to believe that the allegations in the complaint were not only inherently improbable but were wrecked up by way of vengeance and mala- fide on the part of the complainant opposite party no. 2 to settle scores with the petitioner. 4 That being so, this Court would find that the continuance of such malicious prosecution would be gross abuse of process of the Court and consequently this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.1.2006 taking cognizance is hereby set aside. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)