Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1614 (PAT)

Vijay Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2010-07-21

DHARNIDHAR JHA

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petition seeks quashing of the prosecution which was initiated by the Complaint Case no. 1032 of 2007 upon which, after holding an enquiry, the order of summoning dated 30.1.2008 was passed. 3. The facts of the case is that the complainant requested accused no. 1 (petitioner no. 1 herein) for negotiating the marriage of one of the girls of his family some where else and, accordingly, he promised and pointed out that he had received a positive information and as such, he required Rs. 11000 for being given to the family members of the prospective groom. But, subsequently, it turned out that all the statements were false and when the complainant wanted petitioner no. 1 Vijay Kumar Singh to return the money, he placed a specious statement before the complainant that the family members of the prospective groom started negotiating the marriage of the groom in another family and for frustrating that attempt, he spent that money. The complainant was not satisfied and still insisted upon return of money and that took a bad turn when petitioner no. 1 abused the complainant and called his family members who came and slapped and assaulted the complainant and petitioner no. 1 himself gave a chhoora blow on his head causing bleeding injury to him. The brother of the complainant, namely, Punit Singh came to save him and he too was assaulted by sticks and danda and it is alleged that petitioner no. 1 put the chhoora on the neck of cousin brother of the complainant and forced him to sign two blank" papers, which were duly complied and, the two blank papers were delivered to petitioner no. 1. Besides, allegations of theft against accused persons, like petitioner no. 1, 2 and 3, of ornaments or watch or other belongings, were made. 4. The contention is that the relationship between the petitioners and the complainant was bad from quite early a time the filing of the complaint petition as petitioner no. 1 had earlier filed a police case vide Keoti P.S. Case no. 71 of 2007 under different sections of the IPC as back as on 16.7.2007 and after investigation, the case was found true in which allegations of serious nature were made. It was contended that it appears highly improbable and absurd that under such strained relationship, petitioner no. 1 had earlier filed a police case vide Keoti P.S. Case no. 71 of 2007 under different sections of the IPC as back as on 16.7.2007 and after investigation, the case was found true in which allegations of serious nature were made. It was contended that it appears highly improbable and absurd that under such strained relationship, petitioner no. 1 would still be relied upon by the complainant and persuaded to settle the marriage of one of his daughters. It was contended that whole allegations stemmed from malafide and only with a view to spitting at the accused so as to humiliating and harassing them. 5. Shri Girish Chandra Jha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the very present petition by citing a decision of this Court reported in 2005 (4) PLJR 543 (Devendra Prasad alias Siddharth V/s. State of Bihar) and it was submitted that once a revision petition has been filed and the same has been dismissed, second revision was not maintainable and further that a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was not maintainable on that account. It was next contended that the facts of the case did constitute offences for which summons were directed to be issued. 6. The Court is quite alive to the legal position that if a revision petition has been filed, it may act as an obstruction to the filing of the petition of the present nature unless a special case is made out which may indicate to the court that the very prosecution was vexatious, malafide or the facts were inherently improbable or that the very complaint was barred by any special law for the time being in force. These observations can be had fro.n the decision of the Apex Court in paragraph 10 of the judgment in Madhu Limays case (A.I.R. 1978 SC 47). The Supreme Court was placing reliance upon R.P. Kapoor V/s. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon reported in AIR 1961 SC 1117 to observe making out a special class of case in which the exceptional jurisdiction created by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be exercised by the High Court was essential. The Supreme Court was placing reliance upon R.P. Kapoor V/s. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon reported in AIR 1961 SC 1117 to observe making out a special class of case in which the exceptional jurisdiction created by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be exercised by the High Court was essential. It may be pointed out that there may be some other decisions, including the State of Haryana V/s. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 which laid down seven conditions, which may point out the special class of cases in which a prosecution could be quashed. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after having perused the petition and its annexures, what appears is that petitioner no. 1 had filed a report before the police upon which Keoti P.S. Case no. 71 of 2007 was registered under various sections of the IPC. It is quite an admitted fact that one of the accused named in that FIR is Sushil Singh, the complainant of the case, the prosecution through which is sought to be quashed. 8. In the above background of deep enmity, it can be simply absurd to think that the complainant would be approaching petitioner no. 1 Vijay Kumar Singh with a request to negotiate the marriage of one of the girls of his family and further that he will entrust in that connection Rs. 11,000 for that purpose. This also appears absurd that the complainant will, time and again, go to petitioner no. 1 to persuade him for making efforts and further that the occurrence could be taking place in the manner as was alleged. The relationship existing between the parties could be such making it impossible for them to keep on talking terms. It appears that on account of being irked by the fact that petitioner no. 1 had initiated a criminal prosecution through a FIR, probably the complainant was attempting to avenge the act of petitioners and wanted to humiliate them by foisting upon them an extremely vexatious prosecution. 9. That, being the view of mine, I hereby quash the order dated 30.1.2008 passed in Complaint Case no. 1032 of 2007 which could be pending before Sri V.N. Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Darbhanga. 10. The petition stands allowed.