Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 333 (PAT)

Krishna Nandan Prasad Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2010-03-11

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2010
JUDGEMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr Gouranga Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, learned counsel for the State. In spite of name of the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 appearing in the cause list, nobody has appeared. 2. The prayer made in this application is for quashing of order of cognizance dated 26.2.1997 passed by Sri R.P.Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Bettiah in complaint case no.652(C) 1996 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the complainant had filed a title suit against the petitioner and at the time of coming out of court room on 2.7.1996 at 3 p.m., the complainant experienced a push from behind and thereafter allegedly the petitioner abused him for compelling him to appear in the title suit. From the impugned order it appears that the learned Magistrate examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and examined four witnesses under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter passed the impugned order issuing summons on the petitioner and his servant. 4. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that the complainant was earlier a teacher and subsequently he joined Civil Court, Bettiah as a lawyer and he is in habit of filing such cases with frivolous allegations and the present case has been lodged with malafide intentions to compel him to compromise the title suit which has been admittedly filed by the complainant against the petitioner. It was further submitted that the allegations are false because there was no need for a party in a title suit to appear in person and the petitioner had already executed Vakalatnama in favour of a lawyer for appearing in the title suit. It was further submitted that a careful perusal of the complaint petition would reveal that only overt act alleged against the petitioner is possibly a push from behind and exchange of some innocuous words. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, such action even if it has caused harm, is not an offence because the harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense or temper would complain of such harm. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, such action even if it has caused harm, is not an offence because the harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense or temper would complain of such harm. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the general exception provided under Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code would apply in the present case and the court below should have kept that in mind while taking cognizance against the petitioner, who is said to be a reputed medical practitioner being Head of Department of Anatomy, Darbhanga Medical College Hospital. Lastly, it has been submitted that the learned court below should have examined the deposition of witnesses carefully instead of accepted their ipse dixit, particularly when they all have admitted to be litigants and their cases were allegedly being looked after by the complainant as a lawyer. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 . He has placed emphasis upon category no.(7) indicated in paragraph 108 of that judgment to submit that the present proceeding has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the petitioner due to private and personal dispute leading to title suit which was admittedly pending from before. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances as well as the submissions advanced above and after hearing learned counsel for the State also, it is found that the allegations against the petitioner are very trivial in nature and even if any harm was caused to the complainant it was so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not have complained of such harm. It is further found that the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant were clearly under the influence of the complainant being his clients; they did not deserve to be relied upon for the purpose of corroboration. At least another fellow lawyer could have been examined in support of allegations, if they were true. It is further found that the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant were clearly under the influence of the complainant being his clients; they did not deserve to be relied upon for the purpose of corroboration. At least another fellow lawyer could have been examined in support of allegations, if they were true. It is further found that there is admitted material by way of earlier title suit between the parties to support the submissions that the present criminal case has been lodged by way of a complaint petition for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner and with a view to spite him. For the aforesaid reasons, submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are found to have some substance. After lapse of so many years, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow such a proceeding to continue further. For that reason also, this Court is persuaded to stay the criminal prosecution. Accordingly, this quashing application is allowed. The impugned order of cognizance is set aside and the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner is quashed.