ASHOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Vivekanand Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) In this case, despite service of notice on opposite party No. 2, none appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

(3.) The petitioners invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have prayed for quashing of order dated 16.2.2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in Gogri (Maheshkhunt) P.S. Case No. 159 of 2003 whereby cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 379/34, 427 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken. While challenging the order, learned Counsel for the petitioners firstly submits that in this case, alleged occurrence had taken place on 25.5.2003 at 12.00 Noon. After about lapse of five days, the informant filed a complaint before the Mahila Lok Adalat and on the same day, said complaint was transferred to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Subsequently, the complaint was referred to police for investigating the case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and, accordingly, an F.I.R. vide Gogri (Maheshkhunt) P.S. Case No. 159 of 2003 was registered on 5.7.2003 for the offences under Sections 323, 379/34, 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that since the allegation was completely false, after investigation, police submitted final form indicating in the report the allegation as un-true. However, learned Magistrate differing with the final report has taken cognizance of the offences. Learned Counsel submits that order appears to be prima facie illegal. It has also been submitted that in the case diary, the informant herself had not even supported the case. He submits that there were land dispute between some of the petitioners and informant. Learned Counsel also referred to Annexure-4 to the petition, which is a complaint case i.e. Complaint Case No. 806(C) of 2000 in which one of the petitioners had made husband of the petitioners as accused besides other two accused persons. It has been submitted that the present case has been filed maliciously and with a view to wreck vengeance. It has also been submitted that initially in the F.I.R., none was named as accused. However, during re-statement, the informant had named all the 17 petitioners as accused. Learned Counsel further, by referring Annexure-5 to the petition, submits that one month after the occurrence, the complainant had filed a complaint case naming twenty two persons as accused which includes 17 petitioners of this case.