Patna High Court
Dr. Shyamal Kishor @ Dr. Shyamal Kishore ... vs The State Of Bihar on 23 January, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21495 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6168 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Dr. Shyamal Kishor @ Dr. Shyamal Kishore @ Shyamal Kishore Son of Late
Sheo Kumar Sharma, Resident of Saketpuri, Bazar Samiti Rajendra Nagar,
Pollice Station-Bahadurpur, District-Patna, at Present Associate Professor,
T.P.S. College, Constituent Unit of Patliputra University, Patna, Police
Station-Kankarbagh, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Braj Bhushan Sharma, Son of Kailash Sharma, Resident of Mohalla-
Saketpuri, Bazar Samiti, Rajendra Nagar, Police Station- Kadam Kuan,
District-Patna-800016. At Present Principal, SBR College, Bhatgaon, Police
Station-Barh, District-Patna-803213.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP
For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-01-2025
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties.
2. The present application has been filed for
quashing the order dated 04.11.2023 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Patna in Complaint
Case No. 6168 of 2022, whereby and whereunder after
examining the complainant on S.A. and one enquiry witness
took cognizance for the offences under Sections 403 and 405
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 51 and 63 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
2/20
Copyright Act, 1957 against the petitioner.
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that one Braj
Bhushan Sharma/O.P. No. 2 lodged a written complaint
before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna alleging therein, inter
alia, seeking prosecution and conviction under Sections 51
and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 403, 406
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code for committing offences of
infringing copyright of the complainant, unlawful printing,
publishing and selling the research work of the complainant
without his permission and thus by caused huge financial loss
and damaging reputation of the complainant.
4. Complainant is the Principal of S.B.R. College,
Bhatgaon, P.S. Barh, District -Patna. It is alleged that the
complainant has done research work on "Maharshi
Patanjali Ka Yog Manovigyan aur Iski Vartmaan
Prasangikata Ek Darshnik Anushilan" and has submitted
his thesis on the above-mentioned topic for the degree of
"Doctor of Philosophy" (in short PH.D.) in the faculty of
Humanities in the month of July 2007. His thesis on the topic
was approved and accepted and complainant was admitted to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
3/20
the Degree and the Certificate to that effect which was issued
by Hon'ble Vice Chancellor of Magadh University on 14th
August, 2008. Complainant was shocked and surprised after
going through the book authored by petitioner, namely
"Patanjali Yog Manovigyan", published by Nand Kishore
Singh, Janki Prakashan, Ashok Rajpath, Chauhatta, Patna-4
that above-mentioned book authored by petitioner contains
the same materials, combinations of words and letters which
was of the complainant's research work/"Thesis" upon which
the complainant was awarded with the Doctor of Philosophy
by the Magadh University. Referring to the page numbers
complainant alleges that those are copied by the accused/
(petitioner) namely, Dr. Shyamal Kishore and has been
published by co-accused Nand Kishore. It is further alleged
that there are many paragraphs to the thesis which has been
copied and printed in the book which will be provided to the
court later on. The complainant issued notice to petitioner on
22.11.2021and sent to the accused through speed post on 23.11.2021, which was received by him but was never replied.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 4/20
5. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint, Complaint Case No. 6168 of 2022 was registered and thereafter, the complainant was examined on S.A., one enquiry witness was also examined and thereafter, the learned A.C.J.M- I, Patna took cognizance of the offences under Sections 403 and 405 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 against petitioner through impugned order as mentioned above.
6. Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner while arguing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the present complaint petition is a classical example of malicious prosecution, which was brought only with ulterior and oblique motive as to check/prevent the promotion of petitioner for higher post in the college/university. Mr. Sharma while explaining the factual aspect of this case submitted that the petitioner and complainant were working together in same university, where the complainant was the Principal of S.B.R. College, Bhatgaon, P.S. Barh, District- Patna, and the petitioner was the Associate Professor of TPS College, Patna. It is pointed Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 5/20 out that association of petitioner with complainant is an admitted position, where complainant himself admitted that this petitioner helped him while writing his thesis by providing valuable contents/input. In support of his submission Mr. Sharma refer Annexure-2 of the present petition, which is the preface of the thesis submitted by the complainant on the subject "Maharshi Patanjali Ka Yog Manovigyan aur Iski Vartmaan Prasangikata Ek Darshnik Anushilan"
which reads as under:-
izLrkouk Hkkjrh; n"kZu esa egf'kZ iratfy dk egRoiw.kZ LFkku gSA Hkkjrh; fpUru dh eq[;/kkjk vk/;kfRed jgh gSa Hkkjrh; fparu ijEijk esa ;ksx dk egRoiw.kZ LFkku jgk gSA ;ksx dh fofHkUu iz.kkfy;ksa dk mn~Hko vkSj fodkl gesa Hkkjrh; n"kZu esa ns[kus dks feyrk gSA _Xosn ls ysdj vk/kqfud dky rd ;ksx ij O;kid ppkZ gqbZ gSa fofHkUu izoDrkvks us vius vius <ax ls ;ksx dks ifjHkkf'kr fd;k gSA ;ksx ds fofHkUu izoDrkvksa esa egf'kZ iratfy dk loksZP; LFkku gSA izk;% lHkh Hkkjrh; nk"kZfudks us egf'kZ iratfy ds ;ksx dks izeq[k LFkku fn;k gSA egf'kZ iratfy us vius ;ksxlq= esa ekuoh; fpr vkSj mldh izo`fr;ksa dk lq{e euksoSKkfid fo"ys'k.k fd;k gSA vkt euq'; ds lkjs d'Vks dk tM+ mldk papy fpar gSa fpRr ds ukuk ds izdkj dh o`fRr;ksa ds dkj.k gh vkt euq'V Hk;kud ekufld vkSj "kkjhfjd ihM+k ls xqtj jgk gSA fpRr dh vfu;af=r vkSj Lora= o`fr;ksa ds dkj.k gh ns"k vkSj lekt esa Hk;kud dVqrk QsSy jgh gSA fo"o dk v"kkafr dk ewy dkj.k euq'V dk v"kkUr fpr gSA egf'kZ iratyh ;ksx ds }kjk fpRr dks fu;af=r vkSj la;fer djus dk mik;k crykrs gSA vxj Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 6/20 egf'kZ iratyh ds ;ksx dk vuqlj.k fd;k tk;s rks euq'V dk thou izse vkSj vkuUn ls iw.kZ gks tk;sxk rFkk fo"o esa "kkfUr dk jkT; dk;e gksxkA eSa mu egku nk"kZfud fpUrd vkSj ;ksx ds elhgk egf'kZ iratfy dks ueu djrk gw¡ ftuds vewY; fopjksa ls eSa ykHkkfUor gqvk gSA eSa vkUrfjd :i ls d`tK gw¡ vknuh.k Mk0 cztHkw'k.k izlkn "kekZ dk ftUgksus bl "kks/k dk;Z ds funsZ"ku esa vius vuqHko fo}rk ,oa ewy;kadu le; dk ;ksxnku nsdj bl ekSfyd dk;Z dks iw.kZ djus esa lg;ksx fn;kA buds izfr eSa vkHkkj O;Dr djrk gw¡A eSa ex/k fo"ofo/kky; cks/kx;k ds n"kZu foHkkx ds v/;{k MkW0 ¼Jherh½ dqlqe dqekjh ds izfr vkHkkjh gw¡A ftuds vk"khZokn ls izsj.kk ikdj bl dk;Z dks le; ij iwjk dj ldkA lkFk gh foHkkx esa dk;Zjr lHkh fo}rtuks ds izfr Hkh vkHkkjh gw¡A ftudk lg;ksx lnk izkIr gksrk jgk gSA eS mu lHkh vkpk;kZ vkSj xq:nsoks ds izfr Hkh vkHkkjh gw¡A ftUgksus eq>s fl[kk;k] i<k;k vkSj euq';rk dk ewY; le>k;kA eSa Mk0 ";key fd"kksj dk fo"ks'k :i ls /kU;okn nsuk pkgrk gw¡ ftUgksus bl "kks/k izca/k rS;kj djus esa egRoiw.kZ ;ksxnku fn;k gSA eSa ,l0ch0vkj0 egkfo/kky; ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dks /kU;okn nsuk pkgrk gw¡ ftudh izsj.kk vkSj leFkZu ls eSus ;g dk;Z iwjk fd;kA vUr esa eSa ifjokj ds lHkh lnL;ksa vkSj fe=ksa dks /kU;okn nsuk pkgrk gw¡ ftuds izse vkSj Lusg ls eSa ;g dfBu dk;Z iwjk dj ldkA
7. The contents of aforesaid thesis alleged to be illegally incorporated without permission in book published by this petitioner through his book titled as "Patanjali Yog Manovigyan" which stated to be published in year 2016. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 7/20
8. Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel further submitted that despite of the knowledge since 2016 notice qua alleged violation of the copyright was given on 22.11.2021 for which the case was lodged on 26.05.2022. It is submitted that such substantial delay is also one suspicious aspect qua present planned and formulated criminal prosecution.
9. In support of malicious prosecution which submitted to be brought with oblique and ulterior motive, Mr. Sharma, referred letter dated 26.05.2022 issued by Sri Bhuneshwari Raja Mahavidayalaya College, Bhatgaon, Barh, Patna, where complainant wrote a letter to Governor cum Chancellor of the College directly, from where it is apparent that the allegation was raised to prevent petitioner for becoming member of the governing body as University Representative (UR), having all apprehensions that he might disturbed future prospect of the complainant. It is pointed out that as aforesaid letter was directly communicated to the Governor cum Chancellor of the college, the Patliputra University initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 8/20 complainant.
10. Concluding the argument, it is submitted by Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel that the contents of the complaint prima facie not constitute any offence under Sections 403, 405 of the Indian Penal Code and also 51 and 53 of the Copyright Act, 1957. In this context, it is submitted that mere submission of thesis for obtaining PHD degree does not lead to a conclusion ipso facto that the copyright in terms of Section 51 of Copyright Act 1957 was created in favour of complainant. It is also pointed out that complaint failed to suggest on its facial perusal that any 'trust' was ever conferred upon petitioner by complainant so as to make out a prima facie case of "breach" thereof in view of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the present prosecution is fit to be quashed in view of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, and also Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401.
11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 9/20 opposite party no. 2/complainant while opposing the submission as advanced by Mr. Sharma, submitted that the petitioner used certain contents of the thesis submitted by complainant for obtaining his PHD degree. It is also submitted that the complainant witness CW-2 also supported this case but fairly conceded that CW-2 was the domestic servant of the complainant and also shows his unawareness regarding creation of any copyright in favour of complainant qua thesis.
12. It would be apposite to reproduce Sections 403, 405 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 51 and 53 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
"403. Dishonest misappropriation of property.--
Whoever dishonestly mis-appropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.Illustrations.
(a) A takes property belonging to Z out of Z's possession, in good faith, believing, at any time when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. A is not guilty of theft; but if A, after discovering his mistake, dishonestly appropriates the property to his own use, he is guilty of an Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 10/20 offence under this section.
(b) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z's library in Z's absence, and takes away a book without Z's express consent.
Here, if A was under the impression that he had Z's implied consent to take the book for the purpose of reading it, A has not committed theft. But, if A afterwards sells the book for his own benefit, he is guilty of an offence under this section.
(c) A and B, being joint owners of a horse, A takes the horse out of B's possession, intending to use it. Here, as A has a right to use the horse, he does not dishonestly misappropriate it. But, if A sells the horse and appropriates the whole proceeds to his own use, he is guilty of an offence under this section.
405. Criminal breach of trust.--
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".Explanation 1.-- A person, being an employer of an establishment whether exempted under section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not who deducts the employee's contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 11/20 Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.
Explanation 2.-- A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees' contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees' State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.
51. When copyright infringed.-- Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed
--
(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act--
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 12/20 1[(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or]
(b) when any person--
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) imports 2*** into India, any infringing copies of the work:
3[Provided that nothing in sub-clause (iv) shall apply to the import of one copy of any work for the private and domestic use of the importer.] Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work in the form of a cinematograph film shall be deemed to be an "infringing copy".
53. Importation of infringing copies.-- (1) The owner of any right conferred by this Act in respect of any work or any performance embodied in such work, or his duly authorised agent, may give notice in writing to the Commissioner of Customs, or to any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Board of Excise and Customs,--
(a) that he is the owner of the said right, with proof thereof; and
(b) that he requests the Commissioner for Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 13/20 a period specified in the notice, which shall not exceed one year, to treat infringing copies of the work as prohibited goods, and that infringing copies of the work are expected to arrive in India at a time and a place specified in the notice.
(2) The Commissioner, after scrutiny of the evidence furnished by the owner of the right and on being satisfied may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), treat infringing copies of the work as prohibited goods that have been imported into India, excluding goods in transit:
Provided that the owner of the work deposits such amount as the Commissioner may require as security having regard to the likely expenses on demurrage, cost of storage and compensation to the importer in case it is found that the works are not infringing copies.
(3) When any goods treated as prohibited under sub-section (2) have been detained, the Customs Officer detaining them shall inform the importer as well as the person who gave notice under sub-section (1) of the detention of such goods within forty- eight hours of their detention. (4) The Customs Officer shall release the goods, and they shall no longer be treated as prohibited goods, if the person who gave notice under sub-section (1) does not produce any order from a court having jurisdiction as to the temporary or permanent disposal of such goods within fourteen days from the date of their detention.]".
13. It would be apposite to reproduce para 102 of the State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 14/20 Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, which reads as under:
"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 informant report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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 FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 15/20 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 FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons 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 is 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."
14. It would further be apposite to reproduce para 10.7 of the Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Versus State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) 19 Supreme Court Cases 401 , which reads as under:-
"10.7. In Arun Gulab Gawali [State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali, (2010) 9 SCC 701 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1459] , this Court set aside the order [Arun Gulab Gawali v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1524] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 16/20 complaint/FIR which was even filed by the complainant. In the case before this Court, prayer for quashing the FIR before the High Court was by the complainant himself and the High Court quashed the FIR/complaint in exercise of the powers under Section 482CrPC. Quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the FIR, this Court in paras 13 and 27 to 29 has observed as under :
(Arun Gulab Gawali case [State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali, (2010) 9 SCC 701 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1459] , SCC pp. 706 & 710) "13. The power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the FIR/complaint, unless the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. However, the Court, under its inherent powers, can neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor can it "soft-pedal the course of justice" at a crucial stage of investigation/proceedings. The provisions of Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as "CrPC") are a device to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The power of judicial review is discretionary, however, it must be exercised to prevent the miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave errors and to ensure that stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure. However, there are no limits of power of the Court, but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. (Vide State of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 17/20 W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha [State of W.B. v.
Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283] , Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] , G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] and Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703] )
27. The High Court proceeded [Arun Gulab Gawali v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1524] on the perception that as the complainant himself was not supporting the complaint, he would not support the case of the prosecution and there would be no chance of conviction, thus the trial itself would be a futile exercise. Quashing of FIR/complaint on such a ground cannot be held to be justified in law. Ordinarily, the Court of Session is empowered to discharge an accused under Section 227 CrPC even before initiating the trial. The accused can, therefore, move the trial court itself for such a relief and the trial court would be in a better position to analyse and pass an order as it is possessed of all the powers and the material to do so. It is, therefore, not necessary to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for the quashing of a prosecution in such a case. The reliance on affidavits by the High Court would be a weak, hazy and unreliable source for adjudication on the fate of a trial. The presumption that an accused would never be convicted on the material available is too risky a proposition to be accepted readily, particularly in heinous offences like extortion."
28. A claim founded on a denial by the complainant even before the trial commences coupled with an allegation that the police had compelled the lodging of a false FIR, is a matter Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 18/20 which requires further investigation as the charge is levelled against the police. If the prosecution is quashed, then neither the trial court nor the investigating agency has any opportunity to go into this question, which may require consideration. The State is the prosecutor and all prosecution is the social and legal responsibility of the State. An offence committed is a crime against society and not against the victim alone. The victim under undue pressure or influence of the accused or under any threat or compulsion may resile back but that would not absolve the State from bringing the accused to book, who has committed an offence and has violated the law of the land.
29. Thus, while exercising such power the Court has to act cautiously before proceeding to quash a prosecution in respect of an offence which hits and affects the society at large. It should be a case where no other view is possible nor any investigation or inquiry is further required. There cannot be a general proposition of law, so as to fit in as a straitjacket formula for the exercise of such power. Each case will have to be judged on its own merit and the facts warranting exercise of such power. More so, it was not a case of civil nature where there could be a possibility of compromise or involving an offence which may be compoundable under Section 320CrPC, where the Court could apply the ratio of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] ."
15. Considering the aforesaid factual and legal submissions, it appears that both complainant and petitioner were acquainted with each other long back before filing this Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 19/20 criminal case. It is almost admitted position through Annexure-2, which is the preface of the thesis of complainant, namely "Maharshi Patanjali Ka Yog Manovigyan aur Iski Vartmaan Prasangikata Ek Darshnik Anushilan" that this petitioner was specifically thanked, as he made valuable contribution to complete the thesis of the complainant. The record of present case, nowhere suggest that any copyright was created for aforesaid alleged thesis in favour of complainant at any point of time.
Complainant failed to disclose that what original thought and idea expressed by him was incorporated by this petitioner in his book titled as "Patanjali Yog Manovigyan" without his consent. Moreover, Annexure-3 which is almost a complaint letter written by complainant to Governor cum Chancellor of the university emphasizing mainly as not to appoint petitioner as the University Representative in governing body of the University as he may be biased and harming against him. The said letter was directly written to the Governor cum Chancellor of Bihar, for which the Patliputra University also initiated disciplinary proceeding against the complainant. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025 20/20
16. In view of aforesaid letter, prima facie ulterior and oblique motive cannot be denied.
17. Hence, by taking guiding note of Bhajan Lal's Case supra, it appears that the present case is covered by guideline nos. 1 and 7 accordingly, impugned order dated 04.11.2023 as passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Patna, is hereby set aside and quashed qua petitioner with all its consequential proceedings.
18. Let copy of this order be sent to the trial court, without delay.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) veena/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 04.02.2025 Transmission Date 04.02.2025