Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1155 (PAT)

Ghulam Rabbani v. State of Bihar

2014-11-20

ASHUTOSH KUMAR

body2014
ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioners, who are the father and son respectively, have chosen to challenge the order dated 09.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No.12 of 2008, whereby cognizance has been taken under Section 323, 504/35 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The allegation, set out in the First Information Report, is that the opposite party no.2 was called by the petitioner at his house for payment of salary. At the house of the petitioner, it has been alleged by opposite party no.2 that a demand of Rs.5,000/- was put up to him. Refusal to pay the same led to opposite party no.2 being abused with caste name. petitioner no.2 is alleged to have slapped him by pulling his collar. A case with such an allegation was registered vide Sultanganj P.S. Case No.12 of 2008 for the offences under Section 323, 504/35 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. The tenor of the allegation, especially the last part of the First Information Report, makes it very clear that deliberately such facts were alleged, which would have entailed prosecution of the petitioners under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The informant is a gardener in a college, where petitioner no.1 is an Accountant. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that on earlier occasions also the informant had filed frivolous cases against other functionaries of the college and the University, for which he was proceeded against departmentally. On one occasion when the allegations were found to be absolutely malicious, an enquiry was ordered by the Vice Chancellor of the University to Deputy Registrar. It was in this context that certain documents were handed over by the petitioner no.1, who, at the relevant time, was Assistant, to opposite party no.2. Ever since then opposite party no.2 started harbouring grudge against the petitioner. 6. It was in this context that certain documents were handed over by the petitioner no.1, who, at the relevant time, was Assistant, to opposite party no.2. Ever since then opposite party no.2 started harbouring grudge against the petitioner. 6. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the name of the petitioner no.2 was dragged in the case because he happens to be the son of petitioner no.1. 7. Considering the nature of accusation, the circumstances and the previous history of opposite party no.2 of his being a compulsive litigant, the order taking cognizance dated 09.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No.12 of 2008 is held to be unsustainable. The same is quashed. 8. The application is allowed. Application allowed.