Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 96 (PAT)

Amar Nath Singh v. State Of Bihar

2008-01-17

SADANAND MUKHERJEE

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. This is an application for quashing the First Information Report of Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 58 of 2007 dated 20.1.2007 registered against the petitioners under Ss. 341, 323, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the written report of one Neeraj Kumar, purported to be the Secretary of Lakshmi Uma Plaza, Lohanipur, East, Patna. 3. Prosecution story is that the informant and the petitioners are coparceners and petitioner no.1 was the Secretary of Lakshmi Uma Plaza and now the Informant is said to be Secretary of Lakshmi Uma Plaza, and it is alleged that the petitioners used to threaten the sharers of Lakshmi Uma Plaza and for this reason the informant Neeraj Kumar was made Secretary and one Satish Narain Singh was made President of the said Lakshmi Uma Plaza, when there was election for the post of Secretary in 2006. Allegation is that when the present Secretary of Lakshmi Uma Plaza asked about maintenance and various expenses, the petitioners assaulted the informant and snatched golden chain of Rs. 20,000.00. 4. From perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the written report does not mention place of occurrence and date and time of the occurrence. It has been submitted that the aforesaid F.I.R. is counter blast of Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 56 of 2007 under Ss. 341, 323, 447, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in which the informant Neeraj Kumar, Satish Narain Singh, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Kunwar Singh (father of Neeraj Kumar) and three unknown persons were threatening petitioner no.1 to kill him and there was planning to loot the lawyers chamber of petitioner no.1. 5. Informant is said to be nephew of petitioner no.1 and cousin of petitioner no.2. Petitioner no.2 is son of petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.1 is a practising Advocate of this Court. It has been submitted that against the election of the informant as Secretary and one Satish Narain Singh as President and other Office bearers of Lakshmi Uma Plaza, the petitioner no.1 as Secretary, one Ashok Kumar Singh as President and one Professor Balmiki Prasad Singh as one of the Flat Owners has filed Title Suit No. 38 of 2007 before the learned Sub Judge-Ist, Patna. It has been submitted that in the F.I.R. forged signature have been made by the informant, and no offence under Ss. It has been submitted that in the F.I.R. forged signature have been made by the informant, and no offence under Ss. 341, 323, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out as per submission of the petitioner. The fact in the F.I.R. do not constitute any offence. 6. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating therein that the case instituted by the informant under Ss. 341, 323,379/34 of the Indian Penal Code is a counter blast and pressure tactics on the petitioner to make payment of B.S.N.L. rent. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Court below had not applied its judicial mind while taking cognizance nor applied his mind to the probability or improbability of the allegation and the allegation on its very face appears to be improbable and absurd which only allegedly constitute an offence of assault by the petitioner and snatching the golden chain. 7. The petitioner is an Advocate of the High Court and it has been submitted that improbability and absurdity of the prosecution case is apparent on the face of the F.I.R. and it is not probable that the petitioner had threatened, assaulted and taken away golden chain. 8. On behalf of the informant it has been submitted otherwise. It is submitted that on the face of it the petitioner according to the F.I.R. had committed an offence and the investigation is pending and at this stage F.I.R. cannot be quashed. 9. It is settled law that the Court has to apply its judicial mind not only on the narration of the facts but also on the probability or improbability of the allegation. If the allegation on its very face appears to be improbable the Court should not take cognizance. It does not appear probable that the petitioner being an Advocate of this Court shall assault the in-formant by fists and slaps and snatch away golden chain. The allegation on the very face of the F.I.R. appears to be improbable and absurd and it will be an abuse of the process of the Court to continue the proceeding. 10. Accordingly, the proceeding is hereby quashed. 11. This application is allowed.