Sadhana Sangam v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4626 of 2013 (3) dt.08-07-2013 2 language against the complainant and her family members. At the behest of Sadhana Sangam her henchmen looted away the articles and abused her and assaulted the inmates of the house. To save the life of the complainant her daughter-in- law came out and she was assaulted by the accused, Jai Kumar Mehta who also snatched away chain worth Rs.30,000/-. It has further been alleged that Jai Kumar Mehta and Jamun Mehta broken the box and took away ornaments worth Rs. 14,000/- and cash. On the basis of the aforesaid statement Complaint Case No.543 © of 2012 was registered and before that another case was lodged by one Jamun Mehta against Suraj Mehta alias Mantu, Pintu Kumar, Lalit Mehta and Sanjiv Kumar making an allegation that on 5.6.2012 while the measurement of the land was going on smoothly but measurement could not be completed on that day. Again on

6.6.2012 the measurement started then Suraj Mehta alias Mantu, Pintu Kumar, Lalit Mehta and Sanjiv kumar formed an unlawful assembly with the lethal weapons started abusing and assaulting the informant’s side causing injury and took away money and for this a case was instituted vide Chhatapur P.S. Case No. 124 of 2012. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4626 of 2013 (3) dt.08-07-2013 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present complaint case is retaliation of Chatapur P.S. Case No.124 of 2012 that too the case was lodged after six days of incident and institution of the case from petitioner. It has further been submitted that when the police raided the house of complainant of this case then the present complaint case was filed. He further submits that it is nothing but case has been filed out of vengeance because of earlier case filed by the petitioners of this case and as such the present proceeding is liable to be quashed. It has further been submitted that the complainant was examined on oath but supporting evidence, namely Rekha Devi, daughter-in-law was not examined rather other person who was not shown as witness has been examined in this case and the court below has wrongly took cognizance of the offence and liable to be set aside. The present case is malafide and based on absurd allegation. In support of his contention he has relied the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan Vs. Ram Gopal Poddar and another, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 673 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the First Information Report on the basis of considering absurd allegation made in that case. He further Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4626 of 2013 (3) dt.08-07-2013 4 submits that this case is completely covered by the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. He has further submitted that initiation of criminal case is a serious matter and the court which initiating proceeding should apply the judicial mind. In support of his contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, reported in (1998)5 SCC 749. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that so the facts mentioned the complaint petition concerned, do constitute the offence and court has rightly taken cognizance and the judgments that has been relied by learned counsel for the petitioners on the score of malafide is not applicable to the fact of the present as that case was decided on its peculiar facts, cannot be applied to the present case. He has further submitted that facts mentioned in the complaint petition are not clear and at this stage to arrive at finding of malicious prosecution is premature. Having heard learned counsel for the parties there is no dispute that the statement made in the complaint petition do constitute a prima facie case and the judgment relied by Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4626 of 2013 (3) dt.08-07-2013 5 learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case as in that case allegation was made that the accused which is alleged to have snatched the bangle while he was with police in connection of matrimonial dispute was held to be absurd story and on that basis the court quashed the proceeding. In the present case story is probable and cannot be said to be absurd merely it has been filed subsequent to the filing of case by petitioner which cannot be a ground to hold story of present case as absurd story and suffers from malicious prosecution. As the facts and circumstances of the present case are not clear the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on different occasion has said that if pictures are not very clear rather surrounded by the facts of haziness it will not be proper for the court to quash the proceeding. This Court does not find any merit application. Accordingly this application is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to raise all points before the court below at the appropriate state. Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)