VINAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the cases order dated 22.07.2000 passed by Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in compliant Case No. 1656 (C) of 1999 is under challenge and as such both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2, Baijnath Prasad, filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna which was numbered as Complaint Case no. 1656 (C) of 1999/Tr.No.1105 of 1999 alleging therein that Vinay Kumar Singh, District Manager-cum-Certificate Officer and Vijay Narayan Jha Field officer-cum-Incharge Fatuha Branch, Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) had committed various offences under Sections 120B, 342,384, 426 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that brother of the complainant Sheo Nath Prasad had earlier taken loan from the Bank in the year 1974 for purchasing a tractor. After purchasing the tractor, installment of loan was not repaid and thereafter the tractor in question was seized and confiscated and it was sold on auction sale. Even after auction sale entire loan amount could not be recovered and as such a certificate proceeding Vide Certificate Case No. 4 of 1982-83 was initiated against the brother of the complainant. The said proceeding continued. However, during pendency of the said certificate case, the brother of the complainant died in the month of January, 1992 leaving behind him, three sons and wife. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant was an employee of Indian Railways and he superannuated from service on 30.6.1998. It was alleged that on 17.5.1999 both the petitioners visited the village of the complainant and persuaded him to accompany them to the office of the petitioners at Kankarbagh, Patna and thereafter the complainant was coerced to deposit the loan amount which was granted to the brother of the complainant. Since loan amount was not paid, the complainant was forwarded to jail and his son was coerced to deposit the loan amount and only thereafter the complainant could be released from the custody on 28.5.1999. It was alleged by the complainant that the complainant had got no connection with the certificate case and even though he was illegally detained and forced to deposit some loan amount. After filing the complaint the learned Magistrate conducted an enquiry and by the impugned order i.e. order dated 22.7.2000 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, both the petitioners by filing two separate petitions approached this court by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.