IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.556 of 2008 1. MAHENDRA SAH, SON OF LATE YODDHA SAH 2. SRIKANT PANJIYAR, SON OF MOHAN PANJIYAR 3. JAI PRAKASH THAKUR, SON OF UNKNOWN (FOREST GUARD MANPUR DEPOT) 4. BASUDEO RAM, SON OF HARICHARAN RAM 5. MANISH RAJ @ MANISH PANJIYAR, SON OF SRIKANT PANJIYAR 6. MOHAN PANJIYAR, SON OF LATE BASUDEO PANJIYAR ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE PURAINIYA MANPUR, P.S. MANPUR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) ---- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. KHALILUR RAHMAN, SON OF SEIKH AINUDDIN, RESIDENT OF RAM NAGAR (PURANI BAZAR), P.S. RAM NAGAR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 :- None 5 3.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite parties. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated, 23.12.2006, passed in Complaint Case No. 1307(C)/2006 by the Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 147, 148 and 385of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the members of the Development Committee in West Champaran whereas petitioner no. 3 is the Forester. All three are Government employees. Petitioner nos. 4, 5 and 6 are the Secretary, member of the raiding party and Chairman of the Purainiya Manpur Development Committee constituted at village level. Petitioner no. 3 namely Jai Prakash Thakur had instituted a case against the complainant on 10.9.2005 when he had seized a tractor carrying stones which were illegally mined from the 2 forest area. In retaliation a case has been instituted numbered as Complaint Case No. 2103(C)/2005 by Khalilur Rahman against these petitioners with respect to the same occurrence claiming that on 9.9.2005 the tractor in question was stopped by six named accused persons and some unknown persons and the drivers of the tractor namely Nagina Mukhiya and Ram Kumar Rai were kidnapped. The matter was sent up for investigation and for lodging of a First Information Report. After investigation the police submitted final form stating therein that this case is completely false and it has been instituted because of the fact that Jai Prakash Thakur had caught the opposite party and his people indulging in illegal mining in the forest. They were caught carrying a tractor full of stones. A recommendation was also made to institute a case under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The final form was accepted and this case has proceeded on the basis of a protest-cum-complaint petition contained in annexure-3 which contains the same allegations. In a case of this nature where the Government employees in pursuance of their duties take action against those persons who are indulging in illegal mining, it cannot be said that the case has been instituted in a bona fide manner. If the Government servants performing their duty are to be faced with cases of this nature where the parties institute criminal cases in order to seek revenge it would be a perversity of law and would amount to abusing the process of law. The Court below ought to have considered that although 3 a complaint-cum-protest has been supported by statements made under Section 202, it cannot be said that the case was lodged for a bona fide reason. It is obvious that the case has been initially found to be false and allowing the Court to take cognizance would amount to encouraging persons who indulged in criminal offences such as illegal mining which is also an environmental hazard and would amount to demoralizing public servants and is an act which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In the result, I quash the order taking cognizance dated 23.12.2006, passed in Complaint Case No. 1307(C)/2006 by the Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)