Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1051 (PAT)

Indu Shekhar Singh v. State Of Bihar

1999-10-05

NARAYAN ROY

body1999
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no, 2. 2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for quashing the entire criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner incfuding the order taking cognizance dated 20.1.1994 passed in Complaint Case No. 01/c/93 and 506/94 under Sections 161, 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that a petition of complaint was filed by the complainant-opposite party no. 2. on 23.11.93 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna stating therein, inter alia, that the petitioner who happened to be one of the officials of the State Pollution Control Board, Patna demanded a sum of Rs. 35000/- as bribe for regularisation of his services and also for payment of arrears of salary to him but the complainant could manage a sum of Rs. 5000/- which was given to the petitioner in his official chamber in an envelope. The complainant in the complaint petition has alleged against other accused persons also but cognizance has been taken only against the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint petition, the complainant was examined and the learned Magistrate on the basis of the statement of the complainant and its witnesses on solemn affirmation took cognizance of the offence under. Sections 161, 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process against him. From the complaint petition it appears that the alleged occurrence had taken place in between 10.5.1992 to 2.10.1993 whereas the complaint was filed on 23.11.93. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the allegations set forth in the complaint are wholly frivolous and the petitioner has been made accused by the complainant just to harass and humiliate him. Learned counsel further submitted that in the complaint petition, the complainant has categorically stated that he had handed over a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the petitioner in his official chamber whereas in his statement on solemn affirmation he has stated that he gave a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the contradictory statement made by the complainant the entire case appears to be highly improbable and the court below could not have acted upon the same. 10,000/- to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the contradictory statement made by the complainant the entire case appears to be highly improbable and the court below could not have acted upon the same. Learned counsel further submitted that prior to filing of the complaint petition, the complainant along with other employees of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board had approached this Court in C.W.J.C. NO: 1486 of 1992 for regularisation of their services and this Court vide order dated 24.9.92 as contained in Annexure-2 dismissed the writ application directing the authorities to proceed with the selection and appointment against the vacancies which were advertised on 12.12.1990. In the light of the order, as contained in Annexure-2, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner could not succeed in this Court in the writ application, he filed the complaint petition making frivolous allegations against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, submitted that sufficient facts have been disclosed in the first information report constituting an offence against the petitioner and in that view of the matter, the order taking cognizance need not be interfered with. 6. I have perused the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant and its witnesses on solemn affirmation and also the order impugned. On reading of the complaint petition and also the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation, it appears to me that the complainant has made inconsistent statements so far as giving bribe to the petitioner is concerned. In the complaint petition, it is stated that a sum of Rs. 5000/- kept in envelope was given to the petitioner in the official chamber for his regularisation whereas in the statement on solemn affirmation it is stated by the complainant that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was given to the petitioner by way of bribe. As I have already noticed that this Court while dismissing the writ application filed by the complainant and others had directed the authorities to proceed with the selection and appointment as per the advertisement dated 12.12.1990, whereas nowhere it has been stated in the complaint that he had also applied for appointment as per advertisement dated 12.12.90 and the petitioner had demanded bribe to accommodate him. 7. 7. At the face of the complaint petition and the statements of the complainant and witnesses on solemn affirmation, prima facie, I am satisfied that the complainant has not spelt out truth and, thus, the averments made in the complaint petition at the face of it appears to be absurd and inherently improbabfe. 8. In the case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 335], the Apex Court has held that where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, power as contemplated under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised as the prosecution launched against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of the court. 9. In the case of Punjab National Bank and others V/s. Surendra Prasad Sinha (AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1815), the Apex Court has observed: "Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta to harass persons needlessly. Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance." 10. In view of the facts stated above and legal propositions noticed above, it must be held in the instant case that the complainant has attempted to harass and humiliate the petitioner out of personal vendetta and the aflegation inherently appears to be highly improbable and in that view of the matter, the prosecution launched against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of the court. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, I allow this application and quash the entire criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner including the order taking cognizance dated 26.11.1993.