MADAN MOHAN PRASAD 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 14.12.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No. 1708 of 1998 (Trial No. 1385 of 1998). By the said order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offence under Section 323,342 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It has been alleged by the complainant in its complaint petition that while he was cultivating the brinjal plants over his plot, six accused persons arrived and destroyed the brinjal plants and on protest the complainant was assaulted by the accused persons with lathi. He alleged in the complaint petition that in the said occurrence his wrist watch for an amount of Rs.500/- was forcibly taken by the accused persons and due to destruction of the cultivated field he suffered a loss of Rs.200/-.

(3.) Sri Ashutosh Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that the present complaint petition has been maliciously filed by the complainant. He tried to impress upon the court, while referring to Annexures to the petition ,he submits that by registered sale deec the father of the complainant had already transferred the said land to the petitioner. He further submits that after examination of the complainant on S.A., one witness, namely, Prabhu Nath Prasad was examined in support of the complainant. He submits that the witness Prabhu Nath Prasad was in litigation terms with the petitioner and his family and due to that reason the said witness has given false evidence before the court and, as such, false prosecution has been initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Rajendra Nath Mahto V/s.T.Ganguly., 1972 AIR(SC) 470 While referring to paragraph 11 of the said Judgment, he submits that this Court has got ample power to examine the documents, which have been annexed with the present petition. Learned counsel has also relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, State of Haryana & Ors V/s. Bhajanlal & Ors., 1992 AIR(SC) 604 While referring to paragraph 108 of the said Judgment, he submits that the present case comes within the categories of cases, which have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submits that the present case is a malicious prosecution and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside on this ground only.