Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1122 (PAT)

Brij Nandan Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2010-05-04

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar and J JJ. 1. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 10.8.1999 passed by Sri R. K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in Complaint Case No.613 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences 341,323,500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp. Party no.2 filed a complaint petition vide Complaint Case No.613 of 1999, disclosing therein that he was doing business work. He was having factory of iron melting and was manufacturing agricultural goods. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that accused persons were demanding illegal gratification. However, subsequently accused persons visited the business premises of the complainant and after abusing the complainant they also assaulted him. On this allegation, complaint petition was filed and after filing the complaint petition the complainant was examined on S. A. and finally by the impugned order dated 10.8.1999, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 341,323,500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the order of cognizance , the petitioners have filed the present petition. 3. Sri Naresh Dixit , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the complaint petition was maliciously filed by the complainant. While referring to different Annexures to the petition, he submits that while they were discharging their official duties prior to the filing of the present petition, an inspection was done in the premises of the complainant and several irregularities were found. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to Annexure-5 to the petition, submits that one of the allegations made against the complainant was that he had made interpolation in the official documents and, as such, show cause notice was issued to the complainant vide Annexure-5 to the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since action was being taken by the petitioners, while discharging their official duties, the complainant had filed the present complaint petition maliciously. He has further argued that the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance, has completely exceeded its jurisdiction since on the record, there was no order for prosecution sanction. On the aforesaid grounds Sri Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for the quashing of the order of cognizance. 5. He has further argued that the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance, has completely exceeded its jurisdiction since on the record, there was no order for prosecution sanction. On the aforesaid grounds Sri Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for the quashing of the order of cognizance. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that it is improbable that a General Manager will visit the business premises and he will abuse the complainant as well as he will indulge in assault and on this ground, at least the case in respect of petitioner No.1 may be set aside. 6. On 30.9.1999 , while issuing notice to Opp. Party no.2, this Court had directed that pending admission of this application, further proceeding in Complaint Case No.613 of 1999, pending in the court of Shri R. K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 3.3.2000 this application was admitted and while admitting the case, it was directed that pending disposal further proceedings in Complaint Case No.613 of 1999 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, shall remain stayed and the order of stay is still continuing. 7. Sri Gautam Kejriwal , learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party no.2 opposes the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that so far application of Sec.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the present is concerned the same has got no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He further submits that the allegation of assault and abuse cannot be considered as an act relating to discharge of official duty and, as such, in the present case, there is no requirement of the prosecution sanction against any of the accused/petitioners. Learned counsel for Opp. Party no.2 has further argued that while exercising power under Sec.482 Cr. P. C. , this Court may not look into the documents, which have been annexed along with the present petition. He submits that all those documents can be looked into during the trial and not at this stage. Accordingly, he has prayed for rejection of the present petition. 8. Sri A. M. P. Mehta learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State also opposes the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that all those documents can be looked into during the trial and not at this stage. Accordingly, he has prayed for rejection of the present petition. 8. Sri A. M. P. Mehta learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State also opposes the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that at the stage of cognizance only requirement is to see as to whether on the basis of complaint as well as evidence brought during the enquiry, prima facie case is made out or not. He further submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of cognizance and, as such, this Court may not interfere at this stage. 9. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the complaint petition as well as the impugned order. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that while taking cognizance of offence, the learned Magistrate has committed no mistake. So far as the plea of the petitioners that since they had taken action against the complainant the present complaint petition was filed maliciously is concerned, I am of the view that it is difficult for this Court to hold at this stage that the complaint petition was maliciously filed by the complainant. However all such pleas can be taken by the petitioners at the appropriate stage before the court below. Of course, so far the documents, which have been annexed along with the present petition, are concerned, I am of the view that this is not the appropriate stage to examine all those documents. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has committed no mistake. After hearing the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have not made out an exceptional case warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners and, accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 11. It would be appropriate to observe that if the defence, which has been taken by the petitioners before this Court, is taken at the stage of charge, the learned Magistrate without being prejudiced by this order will examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 12. 11. It would be appropriate to observe that if the defence, which has been taken by the petitioners before this Court, is taken at the stage of charge, the learned Magistrate without being prejudiced by this order will examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 12. In view of rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.