RAKTU DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEVEN Petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 511C of 1984, Tr. No. 363 of 2006 including the order dated 8.5.2007 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah (West Champaran), whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed by the Petitioners.

(2.) SHORT fact of the case is that in the year 1984, Opp. Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah ( West Champaran) , which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 511 C of 1984 on an allegation of commission of offences under Sections 147, 379 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the complainant that the Petitioners had forcibly taken his Tyre -Cart. The complainant was illegally detained also. It was disclosed that the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs. 3400/ - After filing of the complaint, an enquiry was conducted and thereafter on 15.2.1986, cognizance order was passed. Subsequently on 11.3.1992, discharge petition was rejected, which was challenged by the Petitioners before this Court vide Cr. Revision No. 101 of 1992. Cr. Revision was disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioners to raise all the points at the appropriate stage under the provision of Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the order dated 11.5.1992 passed by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 101 of 1992, the prayer for discharge of the Petitioners was considered by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah and the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate discharged the Petitioners. After the order of discharge, the complainant preferred a revision vide Cr. Revision No. 229 of 1993, which was allowed by learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge and the case was again remitted back to the court below to hear the parties afresh and pass appropriate order. After the case was remitted back by the impugned order i.e. 8.5.2007, the learned Magistrate at second stage has rejected the discharge petition.

(3.) SRI Sanjay Kumar -7, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners at the very outset submits that Petitioner No. 1 and the complainant are own cousin and the dispute in respect of Tyre -Cart in between the Petitioner No. 1 and the complainant was continuing since long. It has been submitted that earlier in the year 1982 , Petitioner No. 1 had filed a complaint against the Petitioners on an allegation of dishonestly keeping his tyre -cart and other equipments, which was subsequently referred to the police and an F.I.R. vide Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 81 of 1982 was registered against the complainant and others. It has further been submitted that on one occasion the Petitioners were discharged by the learned Magistrate after noticing the fact that the Petitioners had produced the papers relating to Tyre -Cart and at subsequent stage, the learned Magistrate, while rejecting the discharge petition has completely reversed his earlier observation and it was indicated that the complainant had produced papers relating to purchase of the tyre -cart. Accordingly, it has been submitted that at two subsequent stages, the learned Magistrate has passed contradictory orders. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has mainly submitted that the Petitioners have already suffered a lot due to pendency of the proceeding since 1984 that too on allegation of committing trivial offence. Accordingly, it has been prayed that it is a glaring case of infringement of right of the speedy trial and infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On the ground of pendency of the case for such a long period, it has been submitted that allowing the prosecution at this stage will amount to allowing the abuse of the process of the court and, as such, it has been prayed to quash the entire criminal proceeding.