Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2340 (PAT)

Rajmani Prasad Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2010-10-25

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of entire prosecution in Complaint Case No. 2035-C of 2005 as well as order dated 27.9.2006 passed by Shri D.L.Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 323, 500, 190, 199, 218, 203, 200, 168 and 420 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 2035-C of 2005, against three accused persons including two petitioners, who are before this Court. It was alleged that the son of complainant was student of G.D. College, Begusarai in the course of B.Sc. (Honours) for the Sessions 1999-02. It was alleged that despite the fact that the son of complainant had appeared in Part-III examination, his result was un-authorizedly held up and thereafter, illegal gratification was demanded for publishing the result of son of the complainant and similarly situated other students. On aforesaid allegation, complaint petition was filed and after conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence as stated above. 3. Two petitioners, who were at the relevant time, Vice Chancellor and Registrar of Lalit Narayan Mithila University, were made accused on aforesaid allegation. 4. It has been submitted by Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners that earlier the complainant had approached this Court with a prayer to direct the Vice Chancellor of Lalit Narayan Mithila University to publish the result and subsequently the result of son of the complainant was published. 5. I have perused the complaint petition as well as facts enumerated in the petition. The Court is of the view that the complaint petition was not filed fairly and honestly, rather the same was filed with oblique motive. The complaint petition was filed after the result of son of the complainant was published. On the basis of materials available on record, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution against both the petitioners were initiated maliciously and with oblique motive. The complaint petition was filed after the result of son of the complainant was published. On the basis of materials available on record, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution against both the petitioners were initiated maliciously and with oblique motive. Accordingly, with a view to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, it is necessary to exercise inherent jurisdiction in favour of both the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 27.9.2006 passed by Shri D.L. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No. 2035-C of 2005 as well as entire criminal prosecution against both the petitioners is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed.