Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 491 (PAT)

Brahamdeo Rai v. State of Bihar

2008-03-12

body2008
ORDER 1. Brahamdeo Rai and five others have filed this application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 736C/2000, pending in the court of Sri V.S. Dubey, J.M. 1st Class, Patna, as Tr. No. 1088/2000. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. O.P. No.2 Dukhan Rai lodged an F.I.R. on 6.12.1998 bearing Phulwari (Parsa Bazar) P.S. Case No. 474/1998 under Sections 307, 379, 504/34 I.P.C. as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act to this effect that on 5.12.1998 at 8 A.M. when the informant had gone to see his paddy field, he noticed indulgence of accused persons in cutting paddy crops and on protest the accused persons fired with an intention to kill him, but they managed to escape. Cause of such occurrence is a piece of land mentioned in the complaint petition. Police on conclusion of investigation submitted Final Report treating it to be a case of civil dispute. 4. Submission has been advanced that already a Title Suit bearing Title Suit No. 94/1993 is pending between the parties. So, the very continuance of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of process of law. 5. It appears from the record that a protest-cum-complaint petition was also filed against the conduct of the Police machinery and as such the Complaint Case No. 730C/2002 was disposed of after examination of the complainant on oath and holding an enquiry and thereby, a prima facie case being made out against the petitioners which is now pending as Tr. No. 1088/2000 in the court of Sri V.S. Dubey, J.M. 1st Class, Patna. 6. It also appears that earlier Cr. Misc. No. 16645/2004 was dismissed in default for similar prayer. 7. Having heard learned counsel of both the sides and the State and considering the facts as stated in the petition and supplementary affidavit, I do not find that very continuance of the criminal proceeding in the trial court will be an abuse of process of law when there appears direct allegation of having opened fire so as to kill the informant. 8. In the facts and circumstances, there is no reason for interference in the impugned order so as to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 9. The order dated 15.7.2000 is not a speaking order. Rather, it simply goes to show the statement of the complainant was recorded and it was posted for holding an enquiry. 8. In the facts and circumstances, there is no reason for interference in the impugned order so as to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 9. The order dated 15.7.2000 is not a speaking order. Rather, it simply goes to show the statement of the complainant was recorded and it was posted for holding an enquiry. Thereafter, it appears from the record that on 23.1.2001, the learned Magistrate has passed a detailed order and considered the statement of the witnesses recorded in course of enquiry and found that a prima facie case under Sections 327, 382, 504/348 I.P.C. has been made out. So, there is no requirement of any interference in the impugned order. 10. This application, thus, stands, dismissed.