Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.19085 of 2011 ====================================================== Deepak Anand, I.A.S., son of Shri Padam Shankar Chaudhary .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Nathuni Ram son of Late Mohan Ram Versus .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 6 01-11-2013 The present application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 28.04.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 632C of 2010, whereby learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 504 of the I.P.C and Sections 3(1)(X) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The complainant’s case is that he filed a complaint case on 26.03.2010 alleging therein that he was running a shoe business in a wooden shop measuring an area of 9’ X 7’, since last thirty years, within the premises of the Bettiah Collectorate, when an agreement was executed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Bettiah on 08.07.2002 with a clause that the shop will be vacated on one month notice for the sake of constructing cemented shops. It is alleged that the shop of the complainant was demolished four to five months prior to the lodging of the complaint and when the complainant went to the office of this petitioner being Sub-Divisional Officer, Bettiah( an I.A.S. Officer) on 10.02.2010, the complainant was abused by calling caste name since the complainant filed a 2
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19085 of 2011 (6) dt.01-11-2013 2 / 6 petition before the Collector against the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that within the premises of the Bettiah Collectorate, there were hutments, when the decision was taken to construct cemented shop in order to allow the fire brigade and other disaster management equipments to reach the site in case of any disaster and consequently, after due notice, 184 shops were constructed. The complainant gave application for allotment of six shops which appears from the list of the applicant prepared and brought on record as Annexure-5, when the name of the complainant appears at Serial Nos. 10, 123, 234, 417 and the name of the sons of the complainant appears at serial Nos. 235 and 236. Since the complainant could not complete the formalities, hence the allotment was not made, though allotment was finalized subsequent to lodging of the present complaint, which has been brought on record as Annexure-6. It is further submitted that the order of cognizance was passed mechanically without examining the facts that on the instigation of some lawyers, who were not on good terms with the petitioner, the present case was lodged, when the complainant during his S.A. in a reply to a long question has admitted that he will withdraw the complaint case, if the shop is allotted, which reflects the malicious nature of the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the occurrence took place in the Chamber of the petitioner when it is not alleged that anyone else was there with the complainant, hence it can 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19085 of 2011 (6) dt.01-11-2013 3 / 6 not be treated to be a place in public view and accordingly the offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out. Moreover the complaint case proceeded after the petitioner was transferred on 06.06.2011 from the Bettiah, while for the occurrence of 10.02.2010, the complaint was filed on 26.03.2010. It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that there is no dispute with regard to the allotment of shop to the complainant and the offence under the SC/ST Act was committed in public view. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, particularly delayed filing of complaint, the admission of the complainant during S.A. in reply to a Court question that he will withdraw the case, if the shop will be allotted to him and the letter No. 236 dated 16.03.2013 issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Bettiah on 16.03.2013 that complainant was offered two shops but still he has not accepted the offer which suggests that in order to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner the present complaint was filed. The quashing of such proceeding is permissible in view of the ratio laid down in the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Suppl(1) SCC 335. Paragraph 102 reads as follows:- “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 4 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19085 of 2011 (6) dt.01-11-2013 4 / 6 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 law down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give and 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 information 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 5 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19085 of 2011 (6) dt.01-11-2013 5 / 6 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 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 person 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. 6 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19085 of 2011 (6) dt.01-11-2013 6 / 6 (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.” Accordingly to secure ends of justice, the order of cognizance dated 28.04.2011 including the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 632C of 2010 with regard to the petitioner, are hereby quashed. The application is allowed. Shageer/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)