Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1149 (PAT)

Baidya Nath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar

2014-11-19

ASHUTOSH KUMAR

body2014
ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. No body appears on behalf of opposite party no.2. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 03/01/2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistraste, 1st Class, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No.1194/2000 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 147, 323, 427, 447 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code as also the order dated 14/08/2007 passed by Fast Track Court-II, Gopalganj in Cr. Rev. No. 160/01 – 11/05 whereby the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj, has been affirmed. 4. Opposite Party No.2 initially lodged a case against the petitioner and others vide Gopalganj P.S.Case NO.129 of 1998 alleging that on 23/05/1998 while he was constructing his house, the petitioner and his associates came to the plot, used abusive language, chased labourers and also wasted raw materials. 5. The police after investigation found the allegation to be false and recommended for prosecution of opposite party no.2 under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, a protest petition was filed and cognizance has been taken. 6. The petitioner and the opposite party no.2 go a long way in fighting litigations with each other. Series of cases have been filed between the parties. The petitioner is said to be a reputed Orthopaedic doctor. The dispute arose because of opposite party no.2 not following the Municipal Rules and commencing the construction work without leaving the road for egress and ingress. 7. Aggrieved by the conduct of opposite party no.2, the petitioner, as a senior citizen, complained to the authority. Such complaint led to action on opposite party no.2. This being the core dispute between the parties, the cases were be filed, some at the instance of opposite party no.2 and some at the instance of the father of opposite party no.2. 8. The allegations, in sum and substance, in all such prosecution are same and they are frivolous in nature. The averments made in the complaint petition clearly indicate that because of earlier dispute with respect to construction of house over contiguous plot of land, that such a case has been lodged. 9. It has been intimated to this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the petitioner, two cases have already been quashed by the High Court. 9. It has been intimated to this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the petitioner, two cases have already been quashed by the High Court. Web copy of the orders have been furnished during the course of argument of the present case. 10. A perusal of the orders reflect that Complaint Case No. 1260 of 2001 and Complaint Case no. 1391 of 1999 have been quashed. This is the third litigation between the parties in a row. No useful purpose will be served in allowing this proceeding to be continued any further. That apart, the allegations do not make out the case in which cognizance has been taken. 11. In that view of the matter, the order of cognizance, against the petitioner is set aside. 12. This application is allowed. Application allowed.