RAM SAJJAN SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashment of the order dated 27r8-2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur by which he has taken cognizance hi respect of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 1042 of 2009.

(2.) Questioning the correctness of the order Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind before taking cognizance and, in fact, has passed the order in a mechanical manner. It is urged by him that the learned Magistrate has remained oblivious of the factum that before issuing notice he has to keep in mind that issuance of notice, unless warranted, would cause hardship to the person, who has to appear in a criminal court. Learned Counsel has also contended that Rule 31 of the Criminal Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been totally given a go-by by the Court below as a result of which the order passed by him has become sensitively vulnerable. It is his further submission that the complainant is the cousin brother of the present petitioner No. 3 and the present complaint case has been filed out of sheer malice with mala fide intention and, therefore, the proceeding deserves to be quashed on the anvil of the law laid down in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 CrLJ 527.

(3.) It is further proponed by Mr. Mishra that the learned Magistrate has really not appreciated the statements made by the complainant and her daughter under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, thus, the order has been passed in a most perfunctory manner. To bolster his submissions, he has commended me to the decisions rendered in Vijay Kumar v. State of Bihar,2008 1 PatLJR 723, Parminder Kaur v. State of U.P., 2010 CrLJ 895, and Baijnath Jha v. Sita Ram, 2008 AIR(SC) 2778.