Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 875 (PAT)

Suresh Narayan v. State of Bihar

2013-07-25

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
Judgment Anjana Prakash, J. The Petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 01.08.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 984 of 2007 by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chapra. 2. The case of the Complainant is that the Petitioners were posted as Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer in the office of Flood Control Division, Thakrahan Camp Gopalganj had approached the Complainant for soil. He permitted the Petitioners to allow the use of soil at the level of 2 ft. deep from 10 Kathas of land but the officials took 4 feet deep Soil on account of which the sugarcane plant was destroyed and it caused a loss of Rs.50,000/- to him. 3. Further when he went to demand compensation the Petitioners demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000/- to pass the bill. On refusal he was pushed out of the Chamber. 4. The case of the Petitioners is that the Complainant and some other persons of that area had managed to enroll themselves in the list of Crop Compensation Measurement Book, but on site verification by the Petitioners it was found that claim was not genuine and neither was the soil taken nor were the crops damaged. Hence, the Petitioners struck out the name of the Complainant from the Measurement Book. The Petitioner No.2 was also threatened and abused by the contractor and his partner Pramod Singh, who is witness of this Complaint case, on account of which the Petitioner No.2 wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer on 07.11.2006. He also issued a general notice for compensation of destroyed crops on 30.03.2007 and hence the allegation that Petitioners were not passing their bills appears to be baseless. In fact, later on by communication dated 25.05.2007, the Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Thakrahan Camp Gopalganj informed the Deputy Director Information and Public Relation that all the payments had been made to the genuine farmers. It is under these circumstances the Petitioners submit that the present Complaint is not only mischievous but also misplaced. 5. On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant by filing a counter affidavit submits that the Petitioners have acted in a manner which has caused loss to him to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and also he was not granted compensation on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of bribe. 5. On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant by filing a counter affidavit submits that the Petitioners have acted in a manner which has caused loss to him to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and also he was not granted compensation on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of bribe. Moreover, the fact that they pushed him out of his chamber is enough to put the Petitioners on trial. 6. Having considered the background facts and in the nature of allegation against the Petitioners, I am inclined to hold that the continuance of the present proceeding would be a gross abuse of the process of the Court and hence is fit to be set aside. 7. In view of such, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 01.08.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 984 of 2007 by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chapra, is hereby quashed. Application allowed.