Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1248 (PAT)

Aruna Kumari v. State of Bihar

2013-10-23

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.8.2010 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Naugachia directed for issuance of process after taking cognizance in Complaint Case no. 189 of 2010, for the offences punishable under sections 341,323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The complainant Smriti Kumari being Anganbari Sevika filed the complaint against the petitioners and others making accusations of assault, snatching golden chain and cash and taking rupees two thousand for passing vouchers, by petitioner no. 1 being CDPO, when on the complaint made by the husband of the complainant, the accused persons were asked to show cause but ultimately petitioners got the complainant terminated from the post of Anganbari Sevika. 3. On examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the witnesses, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 323,341 and 504/34 of the IPC. 4. It is submitted that petitioner no. 1 is CDPO and petitioner no. 2 is Lady Supervisor and the complainant’s services as Anganbari Sevika was terminated vide Memo no. 987 dated 15.12.2009 issued under the signature of the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur on the complaint made by petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 1 had earlier made a complaint on 7.11.2009 against the husband of the complainant, which has been brought on record as Annexure 2. Hence, as a retaliatory measure the present case has been lodged on 10.3.2010 to wreak vengeance. The present case is squarely covered in view of the ratio laid down in the case of State of Haryan and ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and ors. 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335. 5. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on 1.10.2013 stating therein that the matter has not proceeded beyond cognizance level. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that on finding the prima facie case, cognizance has been taken. 7. Vs. Bhajan Lal and ors. 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335. 5. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on 1.10.2013 stating therein that the matter has not proceeded beyond cognizance level. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that on finding the prima facie case, cognizance has been taken. 7. Considering the fact that even the complaint petition suggests this fact that after being terminated from the post of Angabari Sevika, on the complaint of the petitioners, the complainant has filed the present case, hence prima facie it appears that prosecution has been launched to wreak vengeance which is one of the seven grounds on which quashing of criminal prosecution can be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and ors. (supra) Paragraph nos. 102 of the same reads as follows:– “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F. I. R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F. I. R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/ or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/ or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. It appears from the facts and circumstances of the case that the present prosecution has been launched as retaliatory measure. Hence, allowing the present prosecution to continue will be an abuse of the process of the court. 9. Accordingly, to secure the ends of justice, the order of cognizance dated 23.8.2010, including entire prosecution with regard to the petitioners are hereby quashed. 10. The application stands allowed.