Criminal Miscellaneous No.25306 OF 1998 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ---- G.L. ANTHONY RAJ SON OF MR. GLOURDU SWAMY, VICE PRINCIPAL VIKAS VIDYALAYA, SCHOOL COMPLEX, NEORI, RANCHI. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. GAFFAR SON OF LATE AMIN KHAN, PURNEA CITY, P.S. SADAR, DISTRICT PURNEA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTY. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi,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, who was at the relevant time Incharge, Principal of Vikas Vidyalaya, Ranchi, was made accused in Complaint Case No.874 of 1998 for the commission of offence under Sections 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.9.1998 passed by Sri V.N.L. Shrivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Purnea in Complaint Case No.874 of 1998. By the said order, learned - 2 - Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 379/34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In the complaint petition, a peculiar allegation was levelled. It was stated that the complainant was running a tyre tube repair shop near Zero Mile Gulab Bagh, Purnea. On 9.8.1998, it was alleged by the complainant, one Maruti Van bearing No.BR-14/3584 arrived at his repair shop for getting the repair of punctured tyre of the said Maruti Van. At that time, three persons were on the said Maruti Van including the driver. It was further alleged by the complainant that after the work was done, the complainant demanded Rs.100/- as repair charge. However, the occupant of the Maruti Van abused the complainant and threw Rs.50/- instead of Rs.100/- and thereafter, they fled away. It was also alleged by the complainant that while he was repairing the puncture, the occupant of vehicle had demanded water and they were served water with a jug and glass. It was alleged that the accused - 3 - persons fled away along with jug and glass, which according to the complaint, costs Rs.350/-. The complainant disclosed that he ascertained from the crowed regarding the name of the owner of vehicle and thereafter, he came to know that it was the petitioner and, accordingly, the complaint was filed, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of complainant, one witness, namely, Laddu Singh was examined and a petition was filed by the complainant that he did not want to further examine any witness at the enquiry stage. On the basis of the statement of complainant on S.A., complaint petition and evidence of complainant witness no.1, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 26.9.1998 took cognizance for the offences under Sections 379/34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner, who was Incharge Principal, Vikas Vidyalaya, Ranchi, approached this Court by filing the present petition. By an order dated - 4 - 3.2.1999, while issuing notice to opposite party no.2 to file show cause, this Court directed that in the meanwhile further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed. Despite valid service of notice, the opposite party chose not to appear. Subsequently, by order dated 20.7.1999, the petition was admitted for hearing. While admitting the case, this Court directed that interim order dated 3.2.1999 shall continue and, accordingly, stay is still continuing. At the hearing stage, again notices were issued, which was served on opposite party no.2, but again he has not taken step to appear before this Court. 5. Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the present complaint petition was got filed by one Dr. K.N. Singh. It has been informed that son of Dr. K.N. Singh was student of Vikas Vidyalaya, Ranchi against whom a disciplinary action was taken by the school authority. Sri Priyadarshi further submits that Dr. K.N. Singh was resident of Purnea - 5 - and he managed to get the present complaint filed against this petitioner with a view to wreak his vengeance. He further submits that since the complaint was got filed in a design manner, it appears that after the order of cognizance, the complainant lost his interest in the case and due to that reason, despite valid service of notice, he has not taken any step to appear before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the vehicle in question was being used by the school authority as Ambulance and as such there was no occasion for this petitioner, who was Incharge Principal of the School to use the vehicle in question as his private vehicle and he submits that on the face of the complaint petition, it appears that the allegation is not believable. 7. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner, who was responsible person and Incharge Principal of the vehicle, it is difficult to believe the allegation levelled by the complainant against this - 6 - PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 30.3.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H. petitioner. So far as concoction of the case as alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, I feel there is some force. Moreover, the case has remained pending for quite a long time and prima facie, I am satisfied that the case was filed maliciously. If I do not exercise inherent jurisdiction in the present case, I feel that continuance of the proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.874 of 1998 will amount to abuse of the process of the court. 8. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 26.9.1998 is hereby set aside and petition is allowed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)