Patna High Court
Bhartendu Singh @ Bhartendu Pd. Singh & vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 January, 2017
Author: Vinod Kumar Sinha
Bench: Vinod Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.34668 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -455 Year- 2011 Thana -NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE District-
NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF)
===========================================================
1. Bhartendu Singh @ Bhartendu Pd. Singh S/O Late Radhe Krishna Singh
Resident of Village Bhagwan Bigha, P.S. Ben, District Nalanda.
2. Ajay Kumar @ Ravindra Singh S/O Mr. Janakdeo Singh Resident of Village
Bhagwan Bigha, P.S. Ben, District Nalanda.
3. Dhananjay Singh @ Dhananjay Kumar S/O Sri Bhartendu Singh Resident of
Village Bhagwan Bigha, P.S. Ben, District Nalanda.
4. Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay S/O Mr. Janakdeo Singh Resident of Village Bhagwan
Bigha, P.S. Ben, District Nalanda.
5. Kumar Akhilesh Singh @ Kumar Akhileshwar Singh S/O Sadhu Saran Singh
Resident of Village Bhagwan Bigha, P.S. Ben, District Nalanda.
6. Buddhu @ Baddu S/O Sri Fakirchand Mahto Resident of Village Bhabhnima,
P.S. Ben, District Nalanda.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Mukesh Kumar S/O Sri Hareram Singh Resident of Village Bhagwan Bigha, P.S.
Ben, District Nalanda.
.... .... Opposite Parties
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur with Mr. Rabi
Ranjan, Advocates
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Suresh Mukhiya, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Suman Kumari Singh, APP
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 12-01-2017
The present application has been preferred by the
petitioners for quashing the order dated 12.2.2013 passed by Smt.
Sulekha Jha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Biharsharif, Nalanda by
which after enquiry she has found a prima facie case against the
petitioners under Sections 323 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and ordered for issuance of processes against them.
Prosecution case, in short, is that opposite party No.2,
Mukesh Kumar, has filed a petition of complaint before the Chief
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34668 of 2013 dt.12-01-2017
2/8
Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda stating threin, inter alia,
therein that at about 2 P.M. on 20.4.2011 while he was returning to
house, after casting vote from the election booth the accused persons
assaulted him and also snatched Rs.30,000/- and when the villagers
came the accused persons, including the petitioners fled away. It is
also the case of the complainant that police in collusion with the
accused persons came to his house and damaged his T.V. and on a
false allegation sent him on jail on 21.4.2011 and after coming from
jail he got himself treated in Ben hospital on 30.4.2011 and thereafter
lodged the present case.
The aforesaid case was sent for enquiry and trial before
the court of Smt. Sulekha Jha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Biharsharif, Nalanda but after enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
finding a prima facie case against the petitioners under Section 323
and 379/34 IPC ordered for issuance of processes vide impugned
order dated 12.2.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 455(C) of 2011.
Against the above impugned order the petitioners have
filed this application for quashing the order by which processes have
been issued against them.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that
from the complaint petition itself it will appear that a case has been
lodged against the petitioners in which they were taken into custody
by police and were released on 30.5.2011 but in spite of that the
present case has been filed on 3.5.2011 and no explanation has been
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34668 of 2013 dt.12-01-2017
3/8
given with regard to the delay and, as a matter of fact, one Rabindra
Kumar, uncle of the present complainant, had lodged a complaint
case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate being Complaint Case
No.417(c) of 2011 against opposite party No.2 and others for offences
under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 342, 452, 379, 427, 500, 504, 509,
295A, 384, 386, 387 and 511 IPC. It is also submitted that apart from
that earlier to the filing of the present complaint case mother of
opposite party No.2 had lodged a complaint before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate being Complaint Case No. 411(C) of 2011, which was
later on sent to police for institution of the case for investigation and
on the basis of which Ben P.S.Case No. 23/11 dated 25.4.2011 was
instituted against the petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 504 and 380 IPC and in that case police after investigation
submitted final form finding case not true against all the accused
persons, including the petitioners except petitioner No.5, Akhilesh
Singh. If the complaint petition filed by mother of opposite party No.2
be perused by the court it will clearly show that for the same
occurrence the aforesaid complaint petition has been filed and now
again the present complaint has been filed by opposite party No.2 and,
as such, it will amount to lodging of two cases for the same
occurrence and learned Magistrate prior to order of issuance of
processes, ought to have appreciated this fact.
Apart from that it is submitted that petitioner No.5 has
also filed a case in injured condition before the police, on the basis of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34668 of 2013 dt.12-01-2017
4/8
which Ben P.S.case No. 21/11 dated 20.4.2011 was instituted in
which also opposite party No.2 was an accused and in connection
with that case he was arrested but later on which he also admits in his
complaint petition. Similarly uncle of the present complainant,
opposite party No.2 has also lodged a complaint being Complaint
Case No. 417(C) of 2011 with almost similar allegation against the
petitioners.
On the basis of the above submission, it has argued that
the above facts clearly show that a case has been filed by petitioner
No.5 in injured condition on 20.4.2011 being Ben P.S.Case No. 21/11
in which opposite party No.2 was arrested and later on two cases were
filed by the complainant side, one being filed by mother of the
complainant (opposite party No.2) being Ben P.S.Case No. 23/11
dated 25.4.2011 against the petitioners in which after investigation
allegation against all the petitioners was not true and charge-sheet has
been submitted only against petitioner No.5 and other being
Complaint Case filed by the uncle of opposite party No.2 in almost
similar allegation and thereafter the present complaint petition has
been filed in which vide impugned order dated 12.2.2013 processes
were issued against the petitioners. As such, all the above facts clearly
show that the present proceeding initiated only to wreck vengeance
and settle the score as in a case filed by petitioner No.5, he has been
sent to jail and fact has been admitted by opposite party No.2 and that
for the same fact earlier to the present complaint petition already a
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34668 of 2013 dt.12-01-2017
5/8
complaint was filed by mother of opposite party No.2 on the basis of
which Ben P.S.Case No. 23/11 was instituted in which except
petitioner No.5, Akhilesh Singh, allegation against all the petitioners
was not found true after investigation one more complaint petition has
been filed by uncle of opposite party No.2. All these facts clearly
show that for one occurrence this is the third complaint which has
been filed by opposite party No.2, which is against the well settled
law of the Supreme Court.
Lastly it has been submitted that the learned Magistrate
instead of issuing process ought to have considered this aspect of the
matter that opposite party No.2 has himself stated that he was taken
into custody by police and in such a situation must have been
presented before the court but he had not made any complaint in the
court nor he tried to lodge a case against the accused persons at that
time and even after release from jail he had lodged the present case
after a delay of three days. As such, if present malicious and false
proceeding is allowed to continue, it will only be an abuse of the
process of the court.
On the other hand, learned APP and learned counsel for
opposite party No.2 submitted that he had explained the delay stating
that after coming from the custody he got himself treated and
thereafter he lodged the case and as such there is no delay in lodging
the case and so far earlier complaint filed by mother of opposite party
No.2 is concerned, it has been submitted that the facts of that case is
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34668 of 2013 dt.12-01-2017
6/8
different from the present one. It has also been submitted that the
learned Magistrate after enquiry on perusal of materials available
during enquiry, finding prima facie case against the petitioners had
issued processes in the matter and there is nothing illegal in it.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
In this case there are certain dates and facts which are to
be considered first. The occurrence is alleged to be of 20.4.2011 and
as per the complaint petition time is said to be 2 O'clock in the noon.
So far other complaint filed by mother of opposite party No.2, on the
basis of which Ben P.S.Case No. 23/11 was instituted, date of
occurrence is same and time of occurrence in the FIR as 2.30 O'clock-
3 O'clock in the noon, whereas in the present complaint petition there
is cutting and it is mentioned after cutting in the 7 O'clock in the
evening and in the complaint filed by Rabindra Kumar, uncle of
opposite party No.2 it is mentioned date of occurrence is 20.4.2011 at
3.30 in the noon and so far case lodged by petitioner No.5 Akhilesh
Singh in that case date of occurrence is mentioned as 24.11.2011 at
about 3.30 in the noon. The aforesaid facts clearly show that all the
aforesaid cases have been filed with respect to an occurrence held on
20.4.2011in the noon time.
It further appears from the materials on record that in the case filed by petitioner No.5, i.e., Ben P.S.Case No. 21/11 opposite party No.2 was taken into custody by police on the same day. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34668 of 2013 dt.12-01-2017 7/8 Thereafter complaint case was filed by mother of opposite party No.2 on 21.4.2011 on the basis of which Ben P.S.Case No. 23/11 was instituted and in that case also charge-sheet was submitted after investigation only against petitioner No.5 and against rest of the petitioners case was found not true. Thereafter one complaint was filed by uncle of the complainant which appears to have been filed on 25.4.2011. If the complaints including the present complaint petition be perused it appears that by and large allegations are similar that police entered inside the house assaulted them and taken away articles. No doubt in the complaint petition filed by opposite party No.2 one further allegation has alleged that while he was returning from election booth after casting his vote he was assaulted by the petitioners and thereafter come inside the house and assaulted.
Hence, from perusal of all the cases lodged by them it clearly appears that the case was first lodged by opposite party No.2 in which he was taken into custody and thereafter cases were lodged by mother of opposite party no.2 making allegation against police as well as against the petitioners.
From the above facts a possibility cannot be ruled out that the present complaint petition has been filed only to wreck vengeance and settle the score with the petitioners as the complainant was sent to the custody.
Howeve without giving any opinion all the facts stated above, to my opinion, learned Magistrate ought to have enquire into Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34668 of 2013 dt.12-01-2017 8/8 all the above facts during course of enquiry, especially on the facts that the petitioner has himself stated that he was in custody.
In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order dated rIn view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 12.2.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magiistrate, 1st Class, Biharsharif, Nalanda in Complaint Case No. 455 (C) of 2011 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned Magistrate ought to have considered all these matters, as stated above, while passing the order of issuance of processes.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.2.2013 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the court below for consideration of the same afresh in the light of the observations made above and on the basis of the materials available on the record. If needed learned Magistrate may make further/fresh enquiry on the basis of materials on the record.
This application is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 02.02.2017 Transmission 02.02.2017 Date