MANAN RAM v. STATE OF BIHAR

4. In the aforesaid factual background learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present complaint 4 case is fit to be quashed by this Court in exercise of power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. because the case would fall in the 5th and 7th categories indicated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Bhajan Lal, AIR,1992 SC

604. For this purpose he has placed reliance upon paragraph 108 of that judgment.

5. In paragraph-108 the Apex Court has indicated that in the specified 7 category of cases the court may interfere to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court though it is not possible to lay down any flexible guidelines in such matter. Category 5 and 7 read as follows : Category :-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.” Category :-7 “Where a criminal proceeding 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.”

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite 5 party no.2 has submitted that the criminal case has been lodged by the complainant with allegations, which have been supported by some witnesses and therefore, this court should allow the truth to be found out after trial and should not interfere in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. He has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vrs. Prakash P. Hinduja, (2003) 6 SCC 195.

7. The aforesaid case i.e. Union of India Vrs. Prakash P. Hinduja (supra) related to a case where the High Court had interfered with the criminal prosecution on the ground that C.B.I had filed charge-sheet without placing the same before Central Vigilance Commission. The Supreme Court held that such a ground was not germane to the exercise of inherent power and on such ground no interference should have been made by the High Court. The facts of that case are entirely different. So far as the present case is concerned on a careful perusal of the complaint petition it is found that the allegations are superfluous, almost frivolous and clearly the complainant did not want to participate in the enquiry 6 initiated at the instance of several villagers. The allegation of theft of money by the servant of the petitioner has not been accepted by the learned Magistrate as no cognizance has been taken under section 379 of the I.P.C. In the facts of the case, this court is satisfied that the complaint case requires to be quashed on the ground that the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable and that the present criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and has been instituted with an ulterior motive to prevent the petitioner from holding an impartial enquiry on the complaint lodged by the villagers.

8. This Court is further of the opinion that in the given facts and circumstances even if the allegations were true, the petitioner was working in his office in relation to an official matter hence the act of turning down the complainant from his office by the petitioner on account of some altercation would be inextricably related to his official duty. No criminal prosecution can be permitted without any sanction in such circumstances. Such protection to a Government Officer acting in discharge of his official duty 7 cannot be allowed to be circumvented by resorting to frivolous allegations like pushing. For the aforesaid reasons this application allowed. The criminal prosecution noticed above is quashed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)