Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1069 (PAT)

Lokash Shukla @ Rakesh Shukla v. State of Bihar

2013-08-30

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. 2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) has been filed for quashing of order taking cognizance dated 12.07.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur under Sections 420/406/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Mojahidpur P.S. Case No. 19 of 2012/G.R. No. 431 of 2012. 3. As per the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioners, who are full brothers, is that their father took some money pursuant to an agreement to sell. It is submitted that on some pretext or the other, the father of the petitioners was delaying execution of sale deed and finally when the informant went to the house of the petitioners, they abused and threatened to kill him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that present is a case which is clearly a civil dispute and any criminal proceeding is an abuse of process of the Court. It is submitted that the petitioners are neither alleged to have taken any money nor they are witnesses on the alleged agreement between the father of the petitioners and the informant. It is submitted that just because they are sons of the person who has alleged to have taken money, they have been made accused. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation of abuse and threatening to kill is only a cosmetic addition in the F.I.R. so as to give the entire sequence of events a criminal shade. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have no role to play in the entire alleged episode and this Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance as far as it relates to them. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that from the plain reading of the F.I.R. it is apparent that basically the matter relates to civil dispute for which civil proceedings ought to have been instituted. 6. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that from the plain reading of the F.I.R. it is apparent that basically the matter relates to civil dispute for which civil proceedings ought to have been instituted. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the petitioners, being the son of the person who has taken money and also entered into an agreement for sale of land, cannot plead innocence since the father was living with them and that they cannot be excepted to be ignorant of the happening. 7. Upon hearing learned counsels for the parties, this court is of the considered opinion that criminal proceedings as far as the petitioners are concerned, are not fit to continue, as even from the plain reading of the F.I.R., the petitioners cannot be held liable for any criminal act. Accordingly, this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code, to prevent the abuse of process of the Court, quashes the criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 12.07.2012, as far as it relates to the petitioners, in Mojahidpur P.S. Case No. 19 of 2012 /G.R. No. 431 of 2012. 8. The application, accordingly stands allowed.