Criminal Miscellaneous No.25491 OF 1998 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------------- DR. NANDKISHORE PRASAD,Son of Late Gajadhar Singh, Animal Husbandry Officer, Pusa Block, resident of Pusa Block, Police Station-Pusa, District- Samastipur --------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rajendra Thakur, Son of Late Nirsu Thakur, resident of Village- Harpur-Pusa, Police Station-Pusa, District-Samastipur --------------- Opp.Parties. For the petitioner: S/Sri Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate Pramod Kumar, Advocate For the State : Sri Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P. ---------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE SHRI 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 the entire criminal proceeding pending against him in Complaint Case No.1278 of 1997. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order dated 23.7.1998 passed by Sri L.S. Kushawaha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur in T.R. No.929/98. By the said order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 323,342,379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The case has been initiated on the basis of complaint filed by Opp.Party no.2. 2. The present case was admitted on 5.1.1999 by this Court and while admitting the case, it was directed that during the 2 pendency of this application, further proceeding shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. 3. Despite valid service of notice on Opp.Party no.2, Opp.Party no.2 has not appeared before this Court. 4. In the complaint case, it was alleged by the complainant that on 17.11.1997 in course of distribution of Red-Cards among the people, who were members of below poverty line. It was alleged that instead of receiving Rs.1/-, the accused persons were charging Rs.25/- . The said action was objected by the complainant and thereafter the distribution of Red-Cards was withheld on the said date at about 2.00 P.M. It has also been alleged in the complaint petition that subsequently, the complainant was asked to meet the officials of Circle Officer and he was intimated that the Block Development Officer had called him for discussion. On 18.11.1997 at about 2.00 P.M., as alleged in the complaint petition, while the complainant reached near the gate of Pusa Block, he was intercepted by the three named accused persons including the petitioner and two unknown. Thereafter, he was abused by the accused persons. He was assaulted and in the said occurrence, it was alleged that the petitioner took out Rs.500/- from the pocket of the complainant. After filing of the complaint, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of complaint case, three witnesses were examined. 5. By the order dated 23.7.1998 the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 323,342,379 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 6. Sri Rajendra Prasad, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance as well as initiation of the proceeding on the complaint of Opp.Party no.2, submits that the complaint was filed with malice by Opp.Party no.2. He further submits that on 17.11.1997, while the petitioner and other officers were distributing Red-cards, the complainant had created unforeseen situation in the office and he scattered several documents in the office. Subsequently, he took out a pistol and threatened the officials to stop their work. After such scene being created by the complainant, the distribution of the Red-cards was stopped at 2.00 P.M. and thereafter the petitioner, who was holding the post of Veterinary Officer and was deputed to distribute the Red-cards, submitted a report on the same day,i.e. 17.11.1997 to the Block Development Officer. Learned senior counsel has placed the contents of the report of the petitioner, which is part of the F.I.R. of Tajpur ( Pusa ) P.S. Case No.374 of 1997, He submits that after receipt of the report by this petitioner, the Block Development Officer, Pusa requested the Officer Incharge of Pusa Police Station enclosing therewith the report of the petitioner to take action in the matter. The Block Development Officer vide his letter No.1152 dated 19.11.1997 requested the Officer Incharge, Pusa Police Station to take action. Thereafter on 19.11.1997, an F.I.R. vide Tajpur( Pusa ) P.S. Case No.374 of 1997 was registered against Opp.Party no.2 for the offences under Sections 341,323,353,379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. He points out that after registering the case police arrested Opp.Party no.2 4 and he was produced before the learned Magistrate by the police. However, on production no complaint was made by Opp.Party no.2 regarding any assault or any alleged occurrence. He further submits that after being released in Tajpur( Pusa) P.S. Case No.374 of 1997, the present complaint petition was filed by Opp.Party no.2 either with a view to take revenge or with a view to create a defence in the case, which was registered against his vide Tajpur ( Pusa ) P.S. Case No.374 of 1997. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that bare perusal of the complaint petition makes it clear that the petitioner has committed serious offence. He further submits that in view of the disclosure made by the complainant in the complaint petition it would not be advisable by this Court to interfere with the matter that to while exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. I have also examined the materials available on the record as well as the order of cognizance. In view of the materials , which have been brought on record coupled with the allegation made in the complaint petition , I am of the view that the complaint petition was itself filed maliciously and also with a view of create a defence in a case, which was registered against him as per the report submitted by the petitioner. I am of the view that if this Court does not exercise its inherent jurisdiction in the present case, it will amount to allow the abuse of the process of the court and, as such, I am of the view that the 5 prosecution pursuant to Complaint Case No.1278 of 1997 so far the petitioner is concerned is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 23.7.1998 in T.R.No.929 of 1998 and the entire subsequent proceeding pursuant to the complaint filed by the complainant against the petitioner is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated : the 7th April,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )