BHUDEO PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.4.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in Complaint Case No.51C of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under sections 120B, 161, 409, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The short fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case vide Complaint Case No.51C of 1999 disclosing therein that in a general meeting he was selected as Agent/Abhikarta for constructing Rang Manch under Jawahar Rojgar Yogna in Lagar Gram Panhayat under Parbatta Block. It was alleged that when he was selected in the general meeting as an agent, the accused persons started demanding illegal gratification and since no illegal gratification was given to the accused persons, the accused persons illegally and unautorizedly appointed one Ganauri Das in his place and thereafter first instalment of Rs.7,000/-was given to Ganauri Das. The total amount of construction of Rang Manch was Rs.85,000/-. It was alleged that the advance money of Rs.7,000/- was misappropriated by the accused persons in connivance with each other. On the said allegation the complaint petition was filed and the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. The complainant also produced two witnesses during enquiry in support of his complaint and thereafter by the impugned order i.e. 12.4.1999 the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under sections 120B, 161, 409, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that neither the complaint petition discloses any offence nor the criminal proceeding pursuant to the complaint petition is liable to proceed further since the petition was filed maliciously. He further submits that because of the fact that the complainant was a practicing advocate at Khagaria, after being not given contract work, the complainant filed the present petition maliciously. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that order of cognizance is also an example of non application of mind by the learned Magistrate. He submits that the order has been passed mechanically which is evident from the fact that the learned Magistrate completely failed to notice that Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code was long back repealed after Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was enacted. He submits that on this ground alone, the order of cognizance can be quashed.