MD. RASHID MANZOOR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Md. Najmul Hodda, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Brajendra Nath Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Sinha, learned counsel, who on notice has appeared on behalf of complainant/opposite party no. 2.

(2.) Four petitioners have approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 06-01-2014 passed in Complaint Case No. C1472 of 2004 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Magistrate'). By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition filed under Sec. 245 of the Crimial P.C. on behalf of petitioners for their discharge.

(3.) Short fact of the case is that in the year 2004, a complaint was filed by the complainant/opposite party no. 2, who is close relative of petitioners, in which, it was alleged that on trivial issue, the accused persons entered into the courtyard of the complainant, abused him and also assaulted. It was further alleged that the accused persons had forcibly snatched Rs. 1,000.00 (one thousand) from the complainant's wife. After the complaint petition was filed, an enquiry was conducted and cognizance order was passed. After examination of three witnesses before charge, a petition was filed on behalf of petitioners for their discharge under Section 245 of the Crimial P.C. on the plea that to put pressure on petitioners in a civil case, the complaint was filed against the petitioners. It was claimed that one title suit, vide Title Suit No. 101 of 2004 was pending in between the parties. Besides this, an appeal in a proceeding under Sec. 107 of the Crimial P.C. was also pending. After filing of the discharge petition, the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur by its order dated 22-10-2009 (Annexure - 8 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioners on 19th Aug., 2016) allowed the discharge petition. During the pendency of the proceeding, one of the co-accused namely Manjoor Habib, who was father of petitioners, died and as such, the proceeding against him was directed to be dropped. After the petitioners were discharged, the complainant filed a revision, vide Criminal Revision No. 365 of 2009. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur by its order dated 13-12-2010 allowed the revision and quashed the order dated 22-10-2009, whereby petitioners were discharged. While allowing the revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had also issued certain directions.