Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 110 (PAT)

Bhrigu Ashram Ram v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-15

GHANSHYAM PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the order dated 20.6.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in C.A. No. 833/04 thereby and thereunder the cognizance under Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are Assistant Engineer and Junior. Engineer of P.W.D. as well as their men and the complainant is son of the Contractor, namely, Ram Briksha Singh. The complainant filed the aforesaid complaint case against the petitioners with allegation that Rs. 4,65,000.00 was due against P.W.D. which was not paid in respect of the work done by him. On 11.5.2004 in the morning the complainant along with his father approached the petitioners for payment of dues on the plea of treatment of complainants father upon which the petitioners assaulted the complainant with fists and slaps and also committed theft of golden rings and chain belonging to them. The father of the complainant received some injuries in his finger and elbow. Accordingly, the complainant approached the police and the police forwarded the father of the complainant to hospital for treatment. Ultimately he refused to lodge the case and also arrested him in connection with a case alleged to be lodged by the petitioner no.1. 3. It is needless to say that the learned court below in a mechanical manner in an inquiry under Sec.202 Cr.P.C. recorded the statement of some witnesses and thereafter took cognizance against the petitioners. 4. It is submitted that the entire case is false and baseless which is apparent from the fact that since before the alleged date of occurrence the father of the complainant, namely, Ram Briksha Singh, was in jail in connection with an earlier police case lodged by petitioner no.1 under Sections 452, 323, 342, 384 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The present case filed by the complainant is a counter-blast in order to save his skin from the earlier police case lodged by the petitioner no.1. The prosecution launched against the petitioners, who are Government servants, is out and out misuse of process of court. The case has been lodged out of malice and with ulterior and oblique motive. In support of the above contention the petitioners have filed first information report of Katihar Town P.S. Case No. 194/04 (annexure-3). The prosecution launched against the petitioners, who are Government servants, is out and out misuse of process of court. The case has been lodged out of malice and with ulterior and oblique motive. In support of the above contention the petitioners have filed first information report of Katihar Town P.S. Case No. 194/04 (annexure-3). Annexures 4 and 5 are charge-sheet and order-sheet of the said police case. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 submits that the father of the complainant was assaulted and the police also sent him to the hospital for treatment and the doctor also found injury. The court below has taken cognizance as there was sufficient materials on record. In support of his contention he has filed injury report and other documents as Annexures A to C. 6. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. The documents filed by the petitioners clearly go to show that earlier to the case in question petitioner no.1 had filed a case against the complainant and his father under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The final form (annexure-4) coupled with order sheet (annexure-5) would go to show that on the alleged date of occurrence the father of the complainant was in custody of the police in connection with the aforesaid case. Therefore, apparently the prosecution of the petitioners is wrong. Apart from it the averments made in the complaint petition clearly go to show that actually the grievance of Opposite Party is with regard to payment of dues of contract work. The criminal case has been lodged in order to pressurise the petitioners to make payment. It is nothing but misuse of process of court. The case has been filed with oblique and ulterior motive. 7. Once more this Court wishes to remind the lower court that taking cognizance is a serious matter. The court should not take cognizance against any person particularly Government servants in a mechanical manner. The court has to apply its judicial mind not only on oral evidence but also on probability and improbability of the allegations. If the allegation on its very face appears to be improbable and absurd, the court should not take cognizance. In the present case, apparently the allegations are absurd and improbable. The complainant is a contractor and the petitioners are Engineers and their men. If the allegation on its very face appears to be improbable and absurd, the court should not take cognizance. In the present case, apparently the allegations are absurd and improbable. The complainant is a contractor and the petitioners are Engineers and their men. It does not appear probable that they will indulge themselves in such a nature of crime against local contractor. 8. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed.