Patna High Court - Orders
Vijay Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 10 July, 2009
Author: Abhijit Sinha
Bench: Abhijit Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.51453 of 2007
VIJAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE SHAMSHER BAHADUR
SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-ANANDPURAM, ANAND NIWAS,
P.O.+P.S. KANKE(JHARKHAND), AT PRESENT CIRCLE OFFICER
OF GAUDA BORAM, ANCHAL, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA.
.......................................................................PETITIONER.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. LAKSHMAN PANDIT, SON OF GUPTESHWAR PANDIT,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + P.O. DHANGAEE, P.S.
BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS.
.........................................................OPPOSITE PARTIES.
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prakash Chandra Gupta, Advocate.
---------
O R D E R
The petitioner, the erstwhile Anchala Adhikari (Circle Officer) of Bikramganj in the District of Rohtas, impleaded as accused alongwith six others in Complaint Case No.110 of 2006, has prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom including the order dated 14.6.2006 passed therein by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 323, 379 and 120-B I.P.C. against all the accused including the petitioner.
The complainant, one Lakshman Pandit, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, filed the aforesaid complaint on 13.3.2006 inter alia alleging commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 166, 323, 379, 406 and 409/34 I.P.C. at the hands of the accused persons at about 12 -2- noon on 24.2.2006 when they had come to measure his lands situated on plot no.2680. It is alleged that accused no.1, the petitioner herein, demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- by way of illegal gratification for measuring the lands and when the complainant refused to pay the petitioner lost his cool and reprimanding him for calling him when he was not ready to dole out money, also abused him and ordered to assault and kill him and seize all his belongings. He is also said to have disclosed that the other party had given Rs.30,000/-. It is further alleged that accused no.7 took away Rs.5000/- from him after assaulting him by means of a lathi whereas accused no.3 took away his H.M.T. watch worth Rs.800/- even as the remaining accused assaulted him with fists and kicks and accused no.1 assaulted him with belt and threatened to put him in jail. The complainant has further stated that attracted by the alarm raised by him the witnesses named in the complaint arrived and saw the occurrence even as the accused took to their heels. He claims to have gone to the police station where he was advised to lodge a case in the court.
Assailing the impugned order taking cognizance it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance failed to consider the irrationality and improbability of the story as propounded by the complainant and the back door method was adopted to put pressure on him to submit a report in his favour. It was further submitted that it is the Anchal Amin who does the measurement work and the Circle Officer is in no way involved in measurement of lands. The learned counsel also -3- sought to bring to my notice the major and glaring discrepancies in the narration in the complaint and the statement of the complainant on S.A. In this connection, my attention was drawn to paragraph-1 of the complaint where the petitioner is alleged to have demanded Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification whereas before court in his statement the complainant discloses the demand to be Rs.75,000/- It is also pointed out that if the complainant's case is accepted to be true, then with the other side having already given Rs.30,000/- there was no rationality in the Circle Officer demanding a lesser sum for an order in favour of the complainant. The complaint petition also discloses of the Circle Officer assaulting the complainant with his belt but the statement of the complainant in court does not give any indication of any assault resorted to by the petitioner.
Proceeding further the learned counsel with reference to Annexure-2 series submitted that one Kalika Pandit, the own uncle of the complainant, had through his application dated 21.12.2005 requested the Circle Officer, Bikramganj, to measure the lands over plot no.2680 upon which orders were passed for the Anchal Amin to measure the land in question. The Amin measured the lands on 24.12.2005 and submitted his report on 26.12.2005. Therefore, the story cooked up by the complainant was apparently a false one. It is also submitted that for the same lands a Title Suit is pending in the Civil Courts which goes to show that the entire dispute was civil in nature and the criminal case had been filed by way of pressure tactics.
The complainant has appeared to contest the case but no -4- show cause or counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf and it is only oral submissions that have been advanced to justify the impugned order. It was sought to be submitted that the learned Magistrate on consideration of all the materials that surfaced in course of the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. came to the definite finding that a prima facie case for offences under Sections 323, 379 and 120-B I.P.C. had been made out against all the accused persons, named in the complaint petition, and as the finding was based on materials that had come forth in course of the inquiry, the same could not be interfered with.
On a careful reading of the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on S.A. and the impugned order, it appears that there is sufficient substance and force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The discrepancies and the other material facts pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in course of his submissions and the fact of the pendency of the Title Suit clearly go to show that the story sought to be propounded by the complainant verges on improbability and in a way is a modus operandi to put pressure on the accused persons.
Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
(Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna.
Dated: The 10th day of July, 2009.
Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.