IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45738 of 2007 1. ASHOK SINGH SON OF LATE SHATRUDHAN SINGH, 2. AMIT KUMAR SINGH SON OF ASHOK SINGH 3. SHAILENDRA SINGH SON OF LATE GANESH SINGH 4. MANORANJAN SINGH SON OF LATE GANESH SINGH 5. BIMAL SINGH SON OF LATE GANESH SINGH 6. BULLU SINGH SON OF LATE GANESH SINGH 7. MANOHAR KUMAR SON OF GANESH SINGH 8. BRAHMDEO SINGH SON OF LATE BINDESHWARI SINGH 9. SHAMBHU SINGH SON OF LATE SITARAM SINGH 10. ANIL SINGH SON OF LATE BACHAN @ BATTAN SINGH 11. MANIKANT SINGH SON OF LATE BACHAN @ BATTAN SINGH 12. SHAMBHA SINGH SON OF LATE BACHAN @ BATTAN SINGH 13. PHOCHO SINGH SON OF LATE PHEKAN SINGH 14. LALIT SINGH SON OF LATE PHEKAN SINGH 15. RATAN SINGH SON OF LATE PHEKAN SINGH 16. BOUKU SINGH SON OF LATE ARJUN SINGH 17. SUNIL SINGH SON OF LATE TARNI SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE CHAIDHA BANNI, POLICE STATION MAHESHKHUNT (GOGRI), DISTRICT KHAGARIA. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RITA DEVI WIFE OF BABULAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAIDHA BANNI, POLICE STATION MAHESHKHUNT (GOGRI), DISTT. KHAGARIA. ----------- 3. 9.3.2010. Heard Mr. Vivekanand Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. In this case, despite service of notice on opposite party no.2, none appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2. The petitioners invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have prayed for quashing of order dated 16.2.2006 passed by learned Chief - 2 - Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in Gogri (Maheshkhunt) P.S. Case No.159 of 2003 whereby cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 379/34, 427 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken. While challenging the order, learned counsel for the petitioners firstly submits that in this case, alleged occurrence had taken place on 25.5.2003 at 12.00 Noon. After about lapse of five days, the informant filed a complaint before the Mahila Lok Adalat and on the same day, said complaint was transferred to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Subsequently, the complaint was referred to police for investigating the case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and, accordingly, an F.I.R. vide Gogri (Maheshkhunt) P.S. Case No.159 of 2003 was registered on 5.7.2003 for the offences under Sections 323, 379/34, 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since the allegation was completely false, after investigation, police submitted final form indicating in the report the allegation as un-true. However, learned Magistrate - 3 - differing with the final report has taken cognizance of the offences. Learned counsel submits that order appears to be prima facie illegal. It has also been submitted that in the case diary, the informant herself had not even supported the case. He submits that there were land dispute between some of the petitioners and informant. Learned counsel also referred to Annexure-4 to the petition, which is a complaint case i.e. Complaint Case No.806(C) of 2000 in which one of the petitioners had made husband of the petitioners as accused besides other two accused persons. It has been submitted that the present case has been filed maliciously and with a view to wreck vengeance. It has also been submitted that initially in the F.I.R., none was named as accused. However, during re-statement, the informant had named all the 17 petitioners as accused. Learned counsel further, by referring Annexure-5 to the petition, submits that one month after the occurrence, the complainant had filed a complaint case naming twenty two persons as accused which includes 17 petitioners of this - 4 - case. On these grounds, learned counsel has assailed the order of cognizance. I have also heard learned counsel for the State, who opposes the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that perusal of order dated 26.2.2006 categorically indicates that while differing with the final report, the learned Magistrate has examined materials available on record. From the order, it appears that he has examined statement of several witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Accordingly, he submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and he prays that petition may be rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that in view of a judgment of this Court reported in 2007(2) PLJR 150 (Hira Lal Gupta vs. State of Bihar), the impugned order of cognizance is not sustainable in the eye of law. He submits that though the Magistrate has got ample power to differ with the final report submitted by the police, but while differing, - 5 - the Magistrate is required to assign specific reason. In this case, I have examined the impugned order and I find that the learned Magistrate has assigned a detailed reason. Of course, in my opinion, there is no requirement for assignment such reason, but the impugned order shows the reason for taking cognizance. The F.I.R., which was filed against unknown, indicates commission of offences and as such it cannot be said that F.I.R. contains no fact indicating commission of cognizable offence. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioners had referred several enclosures to the petition, but I am of the view that in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if some document, which has not been got exhibited or proved, the court may refrain to examine those documents at this stage. So far as the allegation made by the petitioners that the informant had lodged the case maliciously, I am of the view that on such allegation an order of cognizance cannot be quashed that too while exercising power under Section 482 - 6 - N.H./ of the Cr.P.C. Time without number, it has been held that this power is to be exercised in exceptional and rarest of rare cases. I do not find that this case can be put in the category of rarest of rare cases. Moreover, the conduct of petitioners also does not appear to be very prompt and bona fide. In this case, order of cognizance was passed on 16.2.2006 and after lapse of about one year and nine months, he approached this Court for quashing of the said order. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to explain regarding the stage of the case. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, I am of the view that this is not a fit case in which this Court can exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that too for quashing of order of cognizance. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)