Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 758 (PAT)

Tarkeshwar Singh v. State of Bihar

2014-07-09

ASHUTOSH KUMAR

body2014
Order The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in Complaint Case No. 775(C) of 2008 whereby the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners under Sections 245 has been refused. 2. The opposite party no. 2 had lodged a complaint against the petitioners alleging acts of vandalism on a plot of land. A vague, general and omnibus allegation was leveled in the complaint petition with respect to damaging and uprooting the crops and assault, on protest, by the opposite party no. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the O.P. No. 2 is close agnate of the petitioners and ever since there was a dispute over a plot of land, has been harassing them by lodging false cases. Counsel further draws the attention of this Court with respect to an earlier complaint lodged by the O.P. No. 2, which was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly another complaint, at the instance of O.P. No. 2, was quashed by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure 8 to the supplementary affidavit). It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that O.P. No. 2 is a co-sharer. By virtue of a decree passed in Title Suit No. 186 of 1977 the share of the petitioners was earmarked. Necessary orders were also passed in the execution case with respect to the decree aforesaid. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 appears and contests the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted by him that the offences are against the human body and the correctness of the same can be tested in the trial. 5. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that O.P. No. 2 has chosen to file successive cases, this Court is of the opinion that such cases are of the nature of retaliatory act because of O.P. No. 2 having lost in a civil proceeding. 6. In view of the aforementioned discussions, allowing this case to continue and asking the petitioners to face the trial, would be an abuse of the process of the Court. The prosecution of the petitioners deserve to be quashed in view of the ratio laid down in case of State of Haryana Vs. 6. In view of the aforementioned discussions, allowing this case to continue and asking the petitioners to face the trial, would be an abuse of the process of the Court. The prosecution of the petitioners deserve to be quashed in view of the ratio laid down in case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 para 102 read as follows:- “102. 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. 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. 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 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.” In view of the above discussions, the order impugned is set aside. The application, is thus, allowed.