VINAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was an Officer of the Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and Certificate Officer under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash of an order dated 26.8.2002 passed by Shri P.N.Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1467(C) of 2001. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against accused persons including the petitioner.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.1467(C) of 2001, against five accused persons including the petitioner on allegation of commission of offences by accused persons under Sections 331, 323, 343, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It was alleged in the complaint petition that accused persons had persuaded the complainant to apply for loan from the Bank and thereafter, Rs.75,000/- was sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the complainant. It was alleged that some instalment was due. However, on false pretext, the complainant was asked to come to the Bank and thereafter, the complainant was illegally detained. It has also been alleged that accused persons named in the complaint petition particularly Accused No.5, namely, Bijendra Prasad, who was Assistant in the Bank, had forcibly taken out Rs.340/- from the pocket of the complainant and thereafter, he was taken into custody and forwarded to Beur Jail. Subsequently, he was compelled to clear the entire loan amount and only thereafter, he could be released from the custody. On aforesaid allegation, the complaint was filed. After filing the complaint, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of the complaint case, two witnesses were examined as enquiry witnesses, who supported the stand of the complainant. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order i.e. order dated 26.8.2002, has taken cognizance of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for summoning all the accused persons including the petitioner.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 3.9.2003, while issuing notice to opposite party no.2, this Court directed that in the meantime, further proceeding pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1467(C) of 2001 shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 9.8.2004, the petition was admitted for hearing. It was directed that during the pendency of this application, interim order of stay granted on 3.9.2003 shall continue. The order of stay is still continuing. Despite the fact that opposite party no.2 has entered his appearance through advocate, at the time of hearing of the present petition, none appeared on his behalf.