Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1419 (PAT)

Manoranjan Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2002-12-15

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2002
Judgment 1. Both the F.I.R. named accused of Samastipur Town (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 536 of 2006 have preferred this application for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom including the F.I.R. 2. The aforesaid case was registered under Sections 353, 186/34 I.P.C. on the written report submitted by one Bijay Kumar Singh, Executive Engineer, R.E.O., Works Division, Rosera, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, stating therein that the office of the Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Samastipur, Camp Rosera was operating on rent in the ground floor of the residential house of the petitioners mother. As per assurances given by the State Government, the office was to be shifted from Samastipur to Rosera. It is said that on 9.10.2006 some of the office articles were removed by truck by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rosera, to his office premises. It is alleged that when the informant with staff went to the office at about 11 A.M. on 25.10.2006 to remove the remaining articles the two petitioners who are the sons of the landlady created hindrance in taking away government property and documents from the office. Accordingly a prayer was made to the Officer Incharge, Samastipur (Muffasil) P.S. to get the remaining articles of the office shifted under police protection and to take action against the guilty persons. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that apparently the F.I.R. is antedated which can be deduced from the fact that whereas the police case was purportedly registered on 25.10.2006 for the occurrence of the same day but the same does not appear to have been sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate till 30.10.2006 obviously with a view to harass the petitioners by way of false implication in the false case. 4. It was also submitted that such offences could not have been committed by the petitioners who are well employed and posted. It has also been submitted that the complainant had written a letter dated 15.10.2006 to the Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Samastipur for verification of electrical bills, which had been sent by the landlady and by another letter dated 11.10.2006 addressed to the landlady O.P. No. 2 while admitting about arrears of monthly rent from the month of March, 2006 and electricity energy dues he sought to inform that the house would be vacated between 10.10.2006 and 15.10.2006. The dues not having been cleared, the landlady again wrote a letter dated 16.10.2006 to the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Supply Division, requesting him to take action for clearing the outstanding electricity bills, with a copy being forwarded to the Superintending Engineer. It has further been stated that the landlady represented before the Officer Incharge, Muffasil P.S.and the Sub Divisional Officer, Samastipur on 16.10.2006 to restrain the O.P. No. 2 from vacating the tenanted premises until such time that the arrear dues were cleared. In response O.P. No. 2 is said to have written to the landlady on 25.10.2006 assuring that all dues of house rent and electricity bills would be paid soon after funds were made available not later than March, 2007. On the above premises it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it would be apparent that no offence whatsoever had been committed by the petitioners. it was also submitted that no specific overt act has been alleged by the informant against the petitioners and in this view of the matter prosecution of the petitioners would amount to be an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Several opportunities were given to the State counsel to file a counter affidavit/show cause but the same was not complied with. That apart although O.P. No. 2 had appeared by filing vakalatnama no counter affidavit/show cause has been filed on his behalf nor has anybody appeared at the time of hearing of the application. 6. From a plain reading of the F.I.R. it would appear that there is allegation of hindrance being created at the time of removal of the office articles. Moreover letters which are annexures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 clearly reveals that the mother of the petitioners is the landlady and rent and electrical charges remained outstanding. Further Annexure-9, a letter of the Executive Engineer dated 25.10.2006 reveals that he had accepted arrears of rent from March, 2006 onwards which amounted to Rs. 21,750/- towards house rent and Rs. 42531.61/- towards the electric bills which was promised to be paid by February, 2007 remain due and a request was made to pay the same uptill February,2007. Further Annexure-9, a letter of the Executive Engineer dated 25.10.2006 reveals that he had accepted arrears of rent from March, 2006 onwards which amounted to Rs. 21,750/- towards house rent and Rs. 42531.61/- towards the electric bills which was promised to be paid by February, 2007 remain due and a request was made to pay the same uptill February,2007. It also appears that the house in question was on rent to the Rural Engineering Organization and rent dues for the house was due till 15.10.2007 and notice were sent to O.P. No. 2 for making the payment. 7. In the case of State of West Bengal V/s. Swapna Kumar Guha ( AIR 1982 SC 949 ) it was observed by the Apex Court that where the F.I.R. does not disclose any commission of cognizable offence it will be the duty of the Court to interfere with any investigation and to stop the same to prevent any kind of uncalled for and unnecessary harassment to an individual. The condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under Section 157 Cr.P.C. is that the F.I.R. must disclose prima facie that a cognizable offence has been committed. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the instant case the criminal prosecution of the petitioners would amount to be an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Samastipur Town (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 536 of 2006 is hereby quashed.