KHURSHID AHMAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sixteen 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 2.6.1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Aurangabad in Complaint Case No. 312 of 1999. By the said order the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under sections 147, 452, 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons.

(2.) However, in addition to the aforesaid charges the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 9 and directed for issuance of processes for securing attendance of the accused persons. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case vide Complaint Case No.312 of 1999 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad alleging therein that on the date of occurrence on trivial matter the accused persons variously armed entered into the house of the complainant and he and family members were assaulted by the accused persons. It was alleged that in the said occurrence some articles were also forcibly removed by the accused persons. On those allegations the complaint petition was filed. After filing of the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation, witnesses were examined and some documents were also produced by the complainant during enquiry. The learned Magistrate after examining the materials which were brought by the complainant by its order dated 2.6.1999 took cognizance for the offences as mentioned above. Mr.Sajid Salim Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that on perusal of the compliant itself it appears that the allegations are not probable particularly in view of the fact that even entire family members of the petitioners were made accused. He submits that it is not believable that young girls of the family of the petitioners will participate in such occurrence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present complaint was counter blast to the complaint which was earlier filed by petitioner no.4 and accordingly he submits that the present complaint was filed maliciously. He submits that on the ground of improbability as well as on the ground of malicious prosecution this court may set aside the order of cognizance. Mr.Parmanand Prasad, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that the complaint petition categorically discloses commission of offence and the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance has examined the entire materials and thereafter the order of cognizance was passed. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials available on the record. It appears from the records that after the order of cognizance was passed, some of the petitioners filed a petition for recall of that order which was rejected on 14.6.1999. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed vide Cr.revision No.21 of 1999 against the order dated 14.6.1999 whereby the learned Magistrate had rejected the prayer of the petitioners for recalling of the order of cognizance.