Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 290 (PAT)

Feku Rai v. State Of Bihar

2010-03-05

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners .while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, have prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 29.6.2005 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Complaint Case No.516(C) of 2004 for offences under Sections 147,148,149,341, 302/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while questioning the order of cognizance submits that the complaint petition has been filed maliciously and the complainant even suppressed the fact regarding lodging of the F.I.R. i.e. Sahpur (Danapur) P.S. Case No.327 of 2004, which was registered against 500 unknown accused persons for killing the three deceased. Learned counsel further submits that in the present complaint petition the allegation is that these four petitioners along with others have killed the three deceased, who have been shown as accused in Sahpur (Danapur) P.S. Case No.327 of 2004. He further submits that although the occurrence took place on 5.7.2004, the complaint petition was filed after lapse of about seven days. Learned counsel while referring Annexure-5 to the petition, which is photo copy of the F.I.R. of Danapur P.S. Case No.167 of 2002 submits that the petitioners have been made accused maliciously in the present case due to reason that uncle of one of the petitioners had lodged an F.I.R. in 2002 against one of the deceased and other accused persons. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf the State while opposing the prayer for quashing of the order of cognizance submits that the contents of the complaint petition categorically describes the commission of serious cognizable offences, in which three innocent persons were brutally killed by these petitioners. Running pages 14 and 15 of the petition categorically describe the commission of offences. 5. Learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of offence on the basis of complaint petition had also examined the complainant on S.A. as also three witnesses in the complaint petition. On perusal of the complaint petition, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order. Running pages 14 and 15 of the petition categorically describe the commission of offences. 5. Learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of offence on the basis of complaint petition had also examined the complainant on S.A. as also three witnesses in the complaint petition. On perusal of the complaint petition, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order. So far as the allegation of mala fide levelled by the petitioner in view of alleged Danapur P.S. Case No.167 of 2002, when a question was put to learned counsel for the petitioners that how the informant of that case can be shown as relative of any of the accused persons, he failed to satisfy the Court and, as such, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding filing of the present complaint in revenge of earlier case does not appear to have any substance. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am of the view that this Court is not meant for conducting a roving enquiry or mini trial while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Time without number it has been held that this power is to be exercised in exceptional and rarest of rare cases. I do not find anything on record to persuade this Court that the petitioner has come to this Court with an exceptional and rarest of rare cases. On the contrary, the order of taking cognizance is completely in accordance with law and, as such, there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.