Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1401 (PAT)

Renu Devi w/o Om Prakash Gupta v. State Of Bihar

2012-10-03

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the State. 2. The Petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Beur P.S. Case No. 18 of 2011 by which he has taken cognizance in the matter. 3. The case of the Complainant/Informant filed on 11.1.2011 is that on 30.12.2010, the accused persons on account of some dispute over ingress on a certain piece of land, came to his house and, thereafter, started to throttle the Complainant’s wife and threatened her to some how get her husband to agree with them as also that one of the accused person tried to pull his younger son from his wife. 4. Before the present Complaint was filed, the Petitioner No. 1 filed a First Information Report being numbered as Beur P.S. Case No. 182 of 2010 dated 30.12.2010 alleging therein that the water from the tank of the Complainant/Informant was flowing on her terrace at which she went to protest with him his son abused her and also attempted to throttle her. They also committed theft of her articles. She was, thereafter, examined by a Doctor at Phulwari Health Centre. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that there is a background of a bona fide dispute with regard to leaving a certain portion of land for easement but unnecessarily the matter has been escalated by both the Parties filing criminal cases against each other. The further submission is that the Complaint/First Information Report was unduly delayed evidently, and filed only to screen himself from the proceeding initiated by the Petitioner No. 1. 6. On the other hand, the counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 submits that in the facts of the case, a clear case punishable under Sections 323, 504, 354/34 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and, therefore, the accused should be prosecuted. 7. Having gone through the background facts of the case as well as the documentary material brought on record by the Petitioners, I am firmly of the view that the present Complaint filed with due deliberation is malicious in nature and with almost the same allegations as those levelled by the Petitioner No. 1 with a view to teach her a lesson for having instituted a case against him and, hence, it deserves to be quashed. 8. 8. In the result, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in connection with Beur P.S. Case No. 18 of 2011, is hereby quashed.