Jang Bahadur Sinha and Others vs State of Bihar and Others

Rekha Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, opposite party No. 2 and also A.P.P. for the State. This is an application u/s 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the order dated 2.9.2003 by which the Judicial Magistrate finding a prima facie case under sections 147, 148, 323 and 379 I.P.C. has directed to issue summons against the petitioners, who are accused in the said case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this complaint case is out and out a malicious prosecution. The father-in-law of the complainant is on litigating terms with the accused persons of the case and out of malice two such persons of the family have been made accused who are aged and infirm. Moreover, a perusal of the complaint petition shows that the case is nothing but a bundle of falsehood. The learned counsel made second ground for setting aside the order that the learned C.J.M. took cognizance of this case without examining the complaint and sent the same to the court of Magistrate for enquiry and disposal.

Learned counsel for the opposite party supported the order and submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order and there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for quashing the order.

It is well settled that at the stage of issuing summons, the Magistrate is only, to see whether the allegation made in the complaint petition disclosed offence and whether on the basis of the statement of the complainant and the statement of the witness examined u/s 202 Cr. P.C. a prima facie case is made out against the accused of the case. In the present case, it is alleged by the complainant that he was returning to his home from Danapur Civil Court to Khagaul and on the way, five persons got down from a car, three of them were holding pistols and abusing him said that the petitioner makes Pairvi in the case filed by Jang Bahadur Singh. They also assaulted him and snatched away a golden chain, wrist watch, Rs. 150/- and some documents. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate after taking the statement of the other witnesses examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. found a prima facie case against the petitioner and took cognizance and issued processes against the petitioner.

In view of the above settled law, I do not find that the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed any error or illegality in directing to issue summons against the petitioner. In view of Proviso (b) of Section 200, the learned C.J.M. was also competent to transfer the case to the Judicial Magistrate without examining the complainant on S.A. Accordingly, this also is no ground to interfere with the order.

As regards the allegation of enmity and false implication on account of enmity, this is the defence of the petitioner and it cannot be considered at this stage. Thus, I do not find any reason to interefere with the order. The petition for quashing, therefore, is dismissed.