Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2041 (PAT)

Bhanwar Lal Singh v. State Of Bihar

2010-09-03

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 8.9.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 1561 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp. Party No. 2, filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur vide Complaint Case No. 1561 of 2000 against the petitioners disclosing therein that the complainant was doing business of clothes and from time to time the petitioners were purchasing clothes from the complainant on credit and accordingly an amount of Rs. 5000/- had become due against the petitioners. Repeatedly demand was made by the complainant. However, one way or the other the matter was deferred by the petitioners. It was alleged that on making demand, the petitioners abused the complainant and also assaulted him and in the occurrence, the petitioners had forcibly taken HMT Quartz wrist watch of Rs. 1100/- and snatched Rs. 400/- from the pocket of the complainant. On the aforesaid allegation a complaint petition was filed onl 18.7.2000, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 1561 of 2000. After filing of the complaint, an enquiry was conducted and the learned Magistrate vide its order dated 8.9.2000 took cognizance of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the petitioners. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 10.8.2004 and it was directed that in the meantime, during the pendency of this application, interim order of stay passed on 25.4.2003 shall continue. The interim order of stay is still continuing. 4. Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that the allegation made in the complaint petition was justly not probable due to reason that both the petitioners are residents of Mumbai and, as such, it cannot be accepted that the residents of Mumbai would commit such a crime, as alleged by the complainant in the complaint petition. It was further submitted that the complainant habitually files frivolous complaint petition against the petitioners. It was further submitted that the complainant habitually files frivolous complaint petition against the petitioners. It was asserted that the complainant and petitioners were in business terms and the complainant was regularly purchasing clothes from the petitioner after making payment either through cheques or through drafts. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexure-6 to the present petition, which is a petition of Complaint Case No. 2414 of 2000. It was asserted that in the said complaint case, i.e. Complaint Case No.2414 of 2000, the complainant had admitted that he was regularly purchasing clothes from the petitioner. However, in the present complaint, the complainant had alleged as if the petitioners were purchasing clothes from the complainant. This shows that the present complaint was filed falsely and maliciously. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also referred Annexure-4 to the petition, which is a copy of the plaint in money Suit No. 8 of 2000. In the Money Suit, the complainant had claimed that he had made over payment to the petitioners for an amount of Rs. 2,08,148.59. In view of the aforesaid contradictory stand taken by the complainant in two different complaint petitions, it was submitted that this ground is sufficient for quashing of order of cognizance and initiation of criminal proceeding against the petitioners. 5. Sri Y.N. Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. I have also heard Sri. A.M.P. Mehta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, who has supported the stand taken by the learned counsel for Opp. Party No. 2. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. The petitioners have brought on record photo copy of the certified copy of the plaint of Money Suit No. 8 of 2000 as well as copy of complaint case No. 2414 of 2000. On the basis of two different stands taken by the complainant in two different complaint petitions, which were initiated by the complainant against the petitioners, the Court is satisfied that allowing the prosecution of the petitioners in the present case will amount to allowing the abuse of the process of the Court and as such, with a view to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, it is necessary to interfere in the matter. 7. 7. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 8.9.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 1561 of 2000 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed.