Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1002 (PAT)

Bal Krishna Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2004-09-21

AFTAB ALAM

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, counsel representing the complainant-opposite party no. 2. 2. The petitioner has come against an order taking cognizance of offences under sections 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and summoning him for facing trial. The cognizance order was passed on the basis of a complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2. The short and the only question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the filing of a complaint, allegedly on untrue allegations and later allowing it to be dismissed for non-prosecution can give rise to offences under sections 500 and 504 of the Penal Code by the complainant against the accused in that complaint. 3. In the complaint filed by Opposite party no. 2, it was alleged that he had published some news-item exposing certain irregular activities of the petitioner, who was at that time posted as Director, T.B. Hospital. According to him, as a result of the report published in his newspaper, the superior authorities took certain actions against the petitioner. Angered by the publication of the news-report, the petitioner filed a complaint against Opposite party no. 2 which was registered as Complaint Case no. 173(c)/1991. It is stated that the complaint was based on altogether false allegations and it was supported as witnesses, by employees of T.B. Hospital, who were in collusion with the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint, the Magistrate passed a cognizance order and summoned opposite party no. 2 for facing trial who was compelled to get bail in that case. Later on, the petitioner stopped appearing in the case and it was dismissed for default. The Opposite party no. 2, then filed the present complaint, alleging that the action of the petitioner in first filing the complaint on false allegations and then allowing it to be dismissed for non-prosecution was punishable under sections 500 and 504 of the Penal Code. 4. The Magistrate has passed the impugned order of cognizance on this complaint. 5. I find it difficult to imagine that the filing of a complaint, even on a false basis can be said to cause defamation or it can give provocation to the concerned person to cause "him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. 6. The Magistrate has passed the impugned order of cognizance on this complaint. 5. I find it difficult to imagine that the filing of a complaint, even on a false basis can be said to cause defamation or it can give provocation to the concerned person to cause "him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. 6. It, therefore, appears to me that the allegation made in the present complaint do not satisfy the necessary ingredients for making out a case under, sections 500 & 504 of the Penal Code. It, therefore, follows that both the complaint and the impugned order of cognizance passed on its basis were misconceived, bad and illegal. The cognizance order and the resultant proceedings are, accordingly, set aside. 7. This quashing petition is allowed.