AMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner files supplementary affidavit. Keep it on record.

(2.) Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

(3.) The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of order dated 5.3.2001 by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 311, 470, 420, 336, 326, 384, 120-B, 167 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code and transferred the complaint petition i.e., Complaint Case No.115(C) of 2001 to the Court of Sri V. Sharan, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur for its disposal. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No.115(C) of 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to Annexure-6 to the petition, which has been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit filed today, submits that in identical situation one another co- accused, namely, Dr. V.N. Prasad @ Dr. Vidyanand Prasad had approached this Court vide Cri. Misc. No.8068 of 2002 for quashing of the entire proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.115 (C) of 2001 and also for quashing of an order dated 5.3.2001. The said petition was heard at length and by assigning a detailed reason, a Bench of this Court by its order dated 20.2.2004 allowed the said petition. This Court quashed the impugned order as well as entire criminal proceeding in respect of co-accused Dr. V.N. Prasad @ Dr. Vidyanand Prasad. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Complaint Case No.115(C) of 2001, Dr. V.N. Prasad was arrayed as an accused no.3. However, petitioner's name finds place at SI.No.2 in the Complaint Case No.115(C) of 2001. The allegation against this petitioner is almost similar to the allegation of Dr. V.N. Prasad and as such learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may be allowed in the light of order dated 20.2.2004 passed in Cri. Misc. No.8068 of 2002. In Cri. Misc. No.8068 of 2002, one of the reasons for allowing the petition was that despite issuance of service of notice to opposite party no.2, none had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. In the present case also at the stage of admission as well as at the hearing stage, notices were issued. However, none has come forward to support the complainant's case. A plea has been taken on behalf of the petitioner that being a doctor, he had treated the son of the complainant and there was no intention either to extort money from the complainant or to render un-warranted medical aid to the son of the complainant.