Surendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rosera in Cr. Revision no. 399 of 2000, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has affirmed the order dated 7.7.2000 passed by the learned ACJM, Rosera, whereby process has been directed to be issued after cognizance being Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6288 of 2011 (8) dt.13-11-2013 taken for the offence punishable under sections 436/149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the complainant that on 14.6.1998 all the accused persons, variously armed, came on tractor and motorcycle and set ablaze 27 hutments of the complainant side as a result of which the complainant’s side suffered heavy loss. Learned ACJM, Rosera, examining complainant and witnesses, directed for issuance of processes after cognizance being taken under Sections 436/149 IPC which was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision no. 399 of 2000, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the order of learned ACJM on the ground that prima facie case has been found by the learned ACJM. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the background of serious land dispute, the accusation has been ventilated through the complaint case, as Title Suit no. 45 of 1982 was decreed in favour of petitioner, Surendra Singh, in the complainant was also a party defendant and consequently in pursuance to the order passed in the Execution Case no. 6 of 1992, the Nazir of Rosera court went to effect the delivery of possession in favour of the petitioners’ side on

14.5.1998 when the complainant’s side attacked the police party, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6288 of 2011 (8) dt.13-11-2013 pelted stones, resorted to firing and set the tractor, motorcycle and their hutments on fire resulting into lodging of Hasanpur P.S. Case no. 99 of 1998 on 14.6.1998 itself, by the Nazir of the Civil Court under Sections 147,148,149,337,325,307,353,436 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in which the complainant and others have been chargesheeted. But for the occurrence of 14.6.1998, the present complaint has been filed on 16.6.1998, though on 15.6.1998 itself one of the witnesses of the complainant, namely, Ram Chandra Sada lodged Rosera P.S. Case no. 100 of 1998, levelling accusation under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325,307,353,436 and 427 of the IPC, where it was alleged that on 14.6.1998 the accused persons including the petitioners came variously armed and set the hutment on fire. Ram Chandra Sada, the informant of Rosera P.S. Case no. 100 of 1998, is a witness in the present complaint, whereas the complainant of the present case is a witness in Rosera P.S. Case no. 100 of 1998. In Rosera P.S. Case no. 100 of 1998, the final form (Annexure 5) was submitted finding the accusation false and consequently the final form was accepted by the learned court below on 23.8.2012 (Annexure 8). Hence, it is submitted that the complaint has not only been filed after two days of the occurrence but the accusation levelled in the complaint gets Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6288 of 2011 (8) dt.13-11-2013 clouded with the case filed by Nazir of Rosera court on the alleged date of occurrence i.e., on 14.6.1998 and the police case lodged on behalf of the complainant’s side on 15.6.1998 has been found false. Hence, it is submitted that it is a clear case of malicious prosecution and has been filed to wreak vengeance, which is one of the grounds on which the prosecution can be quashed in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex court in case of the State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335. It is further submitted that the police case lodged by the complainant’s side and the decree passed in Title Suit completely negates the accusation levelled by the complainant and these documents can be considered, as it substantially negates the accusation, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In this connection reference has been made to the case of Harshendra Kumar D. Versus Rebatilata Koley and Others reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351. It is submitted by learned counsel for complainant that on finding prima facie case, cognizance has been taken, when the order of cognizance has not been interfered by the revisional court and the contention of the petitioners can be considered at the appropriate stage. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6288 of 2011 (8) dt.13-11-2013 Considering the rival submission of the parties, the delayed lodging of the complaint case, after two days of the occurrence, when the police case lodged by the complainant’s side was found false and final form was accepted and the case lodged by Nazir suggested the act of ablazing by the complainant’s side itself, in order to obstruct the delivery of possession in pursuance to the order passed in Execution Case no. 6 of 1992, allowing the present prosecution to continue will be an abuse of the process of the court. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, order of cognizance dated 7.7.2000 passed by the learned ACJM, Rosera including the entire prosecution with regard to the petitioners as well as the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rosera in Cr. Revision no. 399 of 2000 are hereby quashed. This application is, accordingly, allowed. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Anil/-