CHANDRA SHEKHAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 20.8.1999 passed by Shri S.S.Dubey, Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran, in Tr. No.1210 of 1999 arising out of Complaint Case No.35C of 1999. By the said order the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.35C of 1999 disclosing therein that he was a pumping set mechanic and on the date of occurrence i.e. 6.1.1999 he, having rupees three thousand five hundred with him, was going to Bettiah market for purchasing some parts of the pumping set. It was disclosed that while he was going to market he was intercepted by the petitioners. It was alleged that the petitioners were variously armed and by putting country made gun on his chest petitioner no.1 and other accused persons forcibly took the amount of Rs.3,500/- from the pocket of the complainant. It was alleged that since the accused persons were armed with deadly weapon, he could not resist. The said occurrence, as alleged, was taken place at about eight in the morning. After filing of the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and in support of the complaint three enquiry witnesses were examined, who supported the case of the complainant and thereafter by the impugned order i.e. order dated 20.8.1999 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed for issuance of processes for securing attendance of the accused persons. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioners have approached this court by filing the present petition.

(3.) Mr. Ram Adya Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance, has submitted that the present petition was filed for ulterior motive and virtually the petition was filed maliciously. He, while referring to annexure-2, which is a copy of the certified copy of the complaint petition bearing Complaint Case No.1292C of 1998, submits that the said complaint was filed by petitioner no.2 against the complainant of the present case. He also submits that besides opposite party no.2 there were three accused persons. It was submitted that the present complaint was filed by opposite party no.2 in which the accused of Complaint Case No.1292C of 1998, namely, Salim Mian was examined as enquiry witness in support of the complainant/opposite party no.2 in the present case. He also referred to annexure-3 of the petition, i.e. a typed copy of the petition, which was filed by the mother of petitioner no.2 for initiating a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also referred to annexure-5 to the petition, which is an order passed in a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been submitted that in the said proceeding before the Sub. Divisional Magistrate it was found that the land in question was in peaceful possession of petitioner no.2 and his mother. Accordingly, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present petition was subsequently filed maliciously as well as with a view to put pressure in the complaint case which was filed by petitioner no.2 against opposite party no.2. On the aforesaid grounds, prayer has been made to quash the order of cognizance dated 20.8.1999.