RAMA KANT PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Surendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hirday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public prosecutor, appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 1/State and Shri Abhay Kumar Singh, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 complainant.

(2.) The sole petitioner, who was at the relevant time Officer-in-Charge of Kadam Kuan Police Station, Patna, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 18.3.2006 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.1902 (C) of 2005, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Short fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2, who is by profession an advocate, filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was registered as Complaint Case No.1902{C) of 2005 on 6.7.2005, alleging therein that the petitioner, being Investigating Officer of Kadam Kuan P.S. Case No.443 of 2005 registered for the offence under Sections 386, 387, 307, 427 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, had recorded incorrect and false statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this moment, it is relevant to record that in Kadam Kuan P.S. Case No.443 of 2005, own brother of the complainant was one of the named accused along with one another and other un-known persons. This was not only case against him, but as stated in paragraph-10 of the present petition, he was accused in number of serious cases, particularly with regard to demand of rangdari from the traders of the locality. The complainant, who is brother of one of the main accused in Kadam Kuan P.S. Case No.443 of 2005, has further asserted that during investigation in paragraph-21 of the case diary, the petitioner disclosed the name of the complainant and his father to show that they were creating terror in the mind of general traders and as such the petitioner had committed offence under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said case i.e. Kadam Kuan P.S. Case No.443 of 2005, after conducting investigation, police after getting approval from the superior officers, filed charge sheet on 2.8.2005 against brother of the complainant, namely, Ravi Yadav, one Ajay Yadav and father of the complainant namely Dhanni Lal Yadav and investigation in respect of other accused persons was kept pending. Before filing of the charge sheet, the complainant filed aforesaid complaint case on 6.7.2005 as indicated above.