Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 451 (PAT)

Nagendra Kumar @ Sonu Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-03-14

RAKESH KUMAR

body2012
ORDER Heard Shri Suraj Narayan Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Hirday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Shri Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2/complainant. 2. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for setting aside the entire prosecution arising out of Complaint Case No.330 of 1996 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Patna City for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case, the complainant had maliciously filed the complaint case due to the reason that earlier a criminal case was lodged as per the instance of the petitioners’ side against relatives of complainant. It was argued that number of cases, thereafter, were filed by the complainant’s side and petitioners are being harassed by the complainant and their family members. On the ground of malicious prosecution, it has been prayed to quash the entire criminal prosecution. 4. Shri Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioners, right from the very beginning, are simply taking steps for dragging the case so that the case may not come to its logical end. It was submitted that on earlier occasion also, when the case was fixed for charge, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Cr. Misc. No.22319 of 2007 and a Bench of this Court, by its order dated 11.12.2007, after considering the case in detail by a reasoned order, has dismissed the petition. He further submits that plea of malicious prosecution was earlier also taken, but this Court had not interfered with the case and dismissed the petition. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that in the present case, alleged occurrence had taken place some time in the year 1996. He further submits that plea of malicious prosecution was earlier also taken, but this Court had not interfered with the case and dismissed the petition. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that in the present case, alleged occurrence had taken place some time in the year 1996. Of course, in the prayer portion, no prayer has been made for setting aside any order passed by the court below only prayer has been made to set aside the entire criminal prosecution, but at the time of argument, it was admitted at bar that in this case, charges have already been framed and some of the witnesses have already been examined. Since the case is an old one and is still pending and once ground of malicious prosecution was already examined and repelled by this Court, there is no need to interfere with the proceeding pending before the court below. 6. The petition stands dismissed. The court below is required to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the case may come to its logical end without further delay. Both the parties are required to render full assistance to the court below for early disposal of the case. ?