SRICHHOTELALPRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure the petitioners have challanged the order dated 724/88 27-7-1989 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Trial No---461/89 whereby the learned Magistrate has framed various charged under Section 379, 148, 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. From the facts stated in the petition, it appears that the petitioners have, in effect, asked for quashing of the criminal prosecution itself on the ground that the same is an abuse of the process of the Court. Petitioner No. 1 is the S.D.O., Zila Parishad, whereas petitioner Nos. 4 and 3 are its Engineer and Junior Engineer respectively. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 5 are members of the staff of Zila Parishad.

(2.) Opposite party No. 2 herein lodged a complaint on 2-8-1984 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah. In the said complaint it was stated that on 1st April, 1984, the petitioners and one other armed with-deadly weapons were trying to break open the lock of the shop of the opposite party No. 2 and one Jugal Sah. The complaint-opposite party No. 2 protested, whereupon he was assaulted by the petitioners- with fists and slaps. It is further alleged in the complaint that petitioner No. 1, Chhote Lal Prasad, who happened to be the S. D. O. of Zila Parishad, snatched away his gold chain worth Rs. 1,500/-. Similarly, other accused persons took away two wrist watches and cash amount of Rs. 155/- from the complainant and his brother Brahmdeo Prasad. While the occurrence was in progress the police came and apprehended one of the persons, namely, Ranji Baptist (not a petitioners), and took him to police station. Opposite party No. 2 also went to the police station and lodged a report. Unfortunately, the police released the aforesaid Ranji Baptist, and thereafter took no action against the petitioners. It is further stated that on 2-6-1984 and 4-6-1984 the petitioners and other employees of Zila Parishad repeated the incident. Opposite party No. 2 lodged a report, but no action was taken. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 apprehending that he may be dispossessed from his shop applied to the Collector, and the Collectore was pleased to pass an order directing maintenance of status quo. It is further case of opposite party No. 2 that since he apprehended that further attempts may be made to dispossess him from his shop, he filed a writ petition before the High Court, and the High Court passed an order directing the Zila Parishad to release the articles taken away. from his shop to him and Jugal Sah. Ultimately, opposite party No, 2 filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on "2-8-1984. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 20th April, 1987, and thereafter framed charged on 27-7-1989, which is impugned in this application.

(3.) The petitioners, on the other hand, contend that the case made out in the complaint is a false case and is baseless. The petitioners out of sheer vendetta and with a view to harass and browbeat the petitioner into submission filed the complaint for initiation of a criminal proceeding against the petitioners. The petitioners are employees of the Zila Parishad, and have no reason to behave with the complaint in this fashion. The petitioners brought to the notice of the Chief Judicial Magistrate certain facts to satisfy the court that the criminal proceeding was an abuse of the process of the Court, and that opposite party No. 2 herein, who was sought to be evicted from the shop belonging to the Zila Parishad, has resorted to a criminal proceeding only to harass the petitioners. The petitioners contend that originally the shop was allotted to the father of opposite party No. 2 and Brahmdeo Prasad illegally continued in possession of the shop without paying rent therefor. That shop has been allotted to another person by the Zila Parishad. Moreover, there were proceedings against the petitioners for removal of encroachment. On account of these facts the petitioners out of sheer vengence filed the complaint against the petitioners with a view to harass them by abusing the process of the court.