ABHAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing learned lawyers appearing on behalf of the parties, this present application is being disposed of which is so filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the whole proceedings of G.R. case bearing No. 2364 of 1996 arising out of Siwan Town P.S. Case. No. 226 of 1996. It transpires that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan vide its order dated 12.3.1997 has taken cognizance of the offence against the present petitioners under Sections 354, 511 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 finding, as detailed in the order under challenge, prima facie material against them. It further transpires that when this application was so heard initially on the point of admission, the same was so admitted on 6.9.1997 and further proceedings of the learned Court below was so stayed.

(2.) The informant of this case is Malti Devi, wife of Tar Kishore Prasad and the copy of the First Information Report so filed is made available which is Annexure-2 and the copy of the order under challenge is also filed marked as Annexure-1.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted that as far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he happened at the relevant time to be the Executive Engineer, Technical Advisor, Minor Irrigation Circle, Siwan, and petitioner No. 2 happens at the relevant time to be the Junior Engineer of Minor Irrigation Devision, Siwan. It is also submitted that by the plain reading of the F.I.R. under challenge, it will transpire that no case is made out against the present petitioners and rather the lady, the first informant, at the instance of her husband Tar Kishore Prasad had filed the F.I.R. which was frivolous, vexatious and oppressive. That being the position, hence, the prayer is that the whole proceedings rather be quashed which will be nothing but the misuse of the process of the Court and in support of his this contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners has detailed all the grounds so taken in this present application as good grounds for interfering with the impugned order. In a nutshell, it is also submitted that the present F.I.R. was so filed on 20.10.1996 relating to an alleged occurrence taking place on 01.10.1996, and, subsequently, another case was so also filed addressed to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 20.11.1996 relating to the occurrence taking place on 23.10.1998. A copy of which is filed marked as Annexure-3 in which Malti Devi has claimed herself to be illiterate but, surprisingly enough, in the present F.I.R. so filed, the signature is claimed to have been put in her pen therein, which also falsifies the whole prosecution story. Furthermore, it is submitted that as a matter of fact, Tar Kishore Prasad, the husband of the first informant, had committed theft of the iron rods of the department concerned for which a report was so lodged by petitioner No. 1 and in support of his this contention, reference is made to Annexure-4 and by referring to Annexures-6 & 6/A, it is also submitted that the F.I.R. was so also lodged against Tar Kishore Prasad and others relating to the said theft and charge-sheet was so also submitted in the matter. It is further pointed out that because of the departmental proceedings so initiated against the present informant's husband, namely, Tar Kishore Prasad, and also F.I.R. was lodged, at the instance of Tar Kishore Prasad it is further pointed out that a complaint case was so also lodged against the present petitioners, reference is made to Annexure-7 and when the said complaint case was so dismissed, at the instance of Tar Kishore Prasad, the present informant's sister Raj Kishor Devi also lodged another case which was also dismissed, reference is made to Annexure-8. That being the position, it is further pointed out that by all these vexatious petitions so filed, the character of Malti Devi can well be judged and it is nothing but only to put pressure upon the petitioners for withdrawing the departmental proceeding so initiated because of the previous case being lodged against the informant's husband Tar Kishore Prasad for the alleged theft of the iron rods, the present prosecution case so initiated is malicious. Thus, the submission is that the whole proceedings rather be quashed. In support of his this contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners had referred to a reported case State of Harayana v. Bhajanlal and Ors. 1992 (1) Suppl. S.C.C. 325, it is also submitted that in course of investigation, all the witnesses so cited as eye-witnesses had also not supported the prosecution case while giving their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and, in that background, also it can be said that even if taking the worst view the proceeding is allowed to continue there is a bleak chance of conviction and, in that background, the continuance of this proceeding will be the sheer waste of the valuable time of the Court.