Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 899 (PAT)

Hridaya Narayan Choudhary v. State of Bihar

2013-07-29

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
ORAL JUDGMENT Anjana Prakash, J: The Petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 18.07.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhubani in C.R. No. 73/2005/E.N. 109/2005 (Tr. No. 2696/2007) arising out of Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 44/2004. 2. The case of the Opposite Party No. 2 is that he filed a Complaint in the Court below stating therein that they in collusion with each other had got wrong information chirkut issued in the name of Jawahar Lal Prasad Choudhary, brother of Opposite Party No. 2 and they managed to get the same attached in the case records of Jamabandi Correction Appeal Case No. 5/1999-2000 pending in the Court of Additional Collector, Madhubani by relying on the same the Additional Collector filed a criminal case against the Complainant and his brothers for offence under Sections 198, 420 and 467 IPC on account of which they were sent to judicial custody. 3. The categorical submission was that they had never applied for the said chirkut and, therefore, the forged document produced in their name was an act of forgery having been conducted by the accused therefore they should be prosecuted. The present case was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. upon which Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 44 of 2004 was instituted. After close of investigation the police submitted final report stating that in the background of civil dispute the allegations were false. However, the Complainant filed a protest petition upon which cognizance was taken. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that evidently as admitted in the Complaint Petition earlier a case was instituted against them for forgery. In order to screen himself from the said act which they had themselves committed, the present Complaint has been filed. 5. Also since the allegations were in the nature which required a proper independent investigation the Court rightly sent the same to the Police which upon due inquiry concluded that the allegations were false. Under these circumstances, the continuance of the present proceeding solely on interested witnesses and their surmises and conjectures is not justified. 6. Notices had been issued to the Opposite Party No. 2 but despite service of notice he has chosen not to appear before this Court. 7. Under these circumstances, the continuance of the present proceeding solely on interested witnesses and their surmises and conjectures is not justified. 6. Notices had been issued to the Opposite Party No. 2 but despite service of notice he has chosen not to appear before this Court. 7. Considering the background facts of the case, I have no hesitation in holding that the present case deserves to be set aside. In view of such, the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 18.07.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhubani in C.R. No. 73/2005/E.N. 109/2005 (Tr. No. 2696/2007) arising out of Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 44/2004 is, hereby, quashed.