SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two petitioners ,while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , have prayed for quashing of the order dated 4.12.1998 passed by Sri B.N.Banerjee, Judicial Magistrate,1st Class, Motihari in Tr.No.1068 of 1999 arising out of Kesariya P.S. Case No.47 of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance under Sections 25(1-A) b/26/35 of the Arms Act. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Tr.No.1068 of 1999/Tr.No.1365/98.

(2.) Sri Anjani Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance as also for quashing of entire proceeding, submits that the present case was filed maliciously. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 was a teacher in a Government Middle School and since earlier the husband of petitioner no.1 had filed a complaint petition in the year 1996 against the Officer Incharge and other police officials of Kesariya Police Station as well as Chakiya Police Station, by filing the present case the entire family members of petitioner no.1 has been made accused in the present case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submits that in the year 1996 itself, a partition had already taken place in between the family members of the petitioners and the arms in question was not recovered from the premises, which were allocated to the petitioners. Learned counsel has referred to several documents, which have been enclosed along with the present petition and tried to impress upon the Court that neither any case is made out against the petitioners nor the prosecution, in the present case, can be considered as fair and honest prosecution. On these grounds, he has made a prayer for quashing the order of cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding in the case.

(3.) Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. In this case earlier case diary was called for. While referring to certain paragraphs of the case diary, Smt.Pandey submits that the case diary categorically indicates that illegal arms in question were recovered from the premises of the petitioners and, as such, there is no question for falsely implicating the petitioner no.1 or her entire family members. She submits that even if for the time being it is accepted that earlier the husband of petitioner no.1 had filed a complaint against the police officials, it cannot be a ground to assail the prosecution in the present case. She further submits that as alleged by the petitioners, complaint case against the then Officer Incharge of Kesariya Police Station and other police officers was filed in the year 1996. Had there been any grudge in respect of filing this complaint petition, the petitioners would have been implicated by the police officers earlier and they would not have waited for about two years to implicate the petitioners.