Shankar Patel and Others vs The State of Bihar and Another

Radha Mohan Prasad, J.—This Criminal Misc. application has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.12.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 921 of 2001/Trial No. 396 of 2002 by Sri S.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gaya whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 148, 448 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a complaint petition on 1.10.2001 against the petitioners. The allegation and the case of the complainant in the complaint petition is that on 29.9.2001 at 5.30. P.M. the petitioners and two other unknown persons armed with firearms entered into the house of the complainant and looted the ornaments and cash worth Rs. One lac five thousand after breaking open the two boxes kept inside the house. Thereafter they assaulted mother-in-law of the complainant with fists and slaps and butt of the Gun and fled away with looted articles on jeep on which they had come. The occurrence was witnessed by the inmates of the house and also by the neighbors, who were present there. The motive for the occurrence as alleged in the complaint petition is that one Pranav Kumar, who is brother of the husband of the complainant is married with Ranjeeta, daughter of Shankar Patel-petitioner No. 1, who had gifted cash and ornaments and on instigation of her father Ranjeeta was asking for that money and other articles due to which quarrel had taken place in past. Shankar Patel had also threatened to implicate all the members of the family of complainant in a false case of dowry and torture of Ranjeeta.

According to the case of the petitioners, the complaint petition is a counter blast with a view to pressurize the petitioners, who earlier filed a case for the offence u/s 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband and other family members of the complainant being Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 149 of 2000. It has been stated that Ranjeeta Kumari @ Guddi is daughter of petitioner No. 1 and full sister of petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, and petitioner No. 4 is her cousin (Mamera Bhai) and petitioner No. 5 is her Mama. She was married to one Pranav Kumar, full brother of husband of the complainant on 18.4.2000. It is further stated that Pranav Kumar, his father, mother, brothers, sister and brother-in-law including the husband of the complainant extracted huge amount as dowry from the father of Ranjeeta, namely, petitioner No. 1. However, Ranjeeta was tortured in various ways by her husband and in-laws after the marriage and when all attempts to settle her life peacefully failed she was driven out from her Sasural. Ultimately she filed complaint petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur, who referred the case to the Police for instituting a F.I.R. and investigation.

This Court vide order dated 21.12.2002 issued notice to Opposite Party No. 2 and further proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya was stayed.

Opposite Party No. 2 appeared and filed counter affidavit in which only it has been stated that cognizance has been taken after taking evidence u/s 202 Cr. P.C. and on the basis of which prima facie case was made out against the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order taking cognizance is bad because the entire case on the face of it is concocted, false and baseless. It has been further contended that the present complaint petition has been brought by the complainant and her family members with malice in order to take revenge as well as to put pressure upon Ranjeeta and her family members to leave pairvi in their case. He further submitted that petitioner No. 1 is posted as Junior Engineer in Electricity, Civil Construction Division No. V B'', Thermal Power Project, Anpara (Sonebhadra), Uttar Pradesh, petitioner No. 2 is working at C.M.R. Design Automation (P) Ltd., Bangalore and their Head of the Department has issued certificate that they were on duty on 29.9.2001 and 30.9.2001, when it is alleged that the occurrence took place. It is further stated that petitioner No. 3 is a student and living with his father at Anpara in Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner No. 4 is brother-in-law of petitioner No. 1 and is aged about 67 years and petitioner No. 5 Manish Kumar is his son and is running a private coaching Institute at Patna. He further submitted that the present complaint petition is an abuse of the process of the Court.

I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. There cannot be any dispute that the powers u/s 482 Cr. P.C. are to be exercised by the Court in exceptional circumstances and very sparingly. The Court is not expected to embark upon the enquiry about the guilt or otherwise of the case in a petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. But, if on the face of the record itself it appears that the accused cannot be called upon to answer any criminal liability, it will be just and proper for this Court to exercise its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , the Supreme Court laid down seven criteria in which circumstances the High Court may in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr. P.C. interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and one of the criteria is "Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge". The present case is a glaring example of mala fide, where the proceeding has been maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

It appears that daughter of petitioner No. 1 filed complaint petition bearing Complaint Case No. 2322 of 2000 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur on 15.11.2000, who referred the case to the Police for instituting a F.I.R. and Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 149 of 2000 dated 14.12.2000 was instituted for the offence u/s 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against eight persons including the husband of the complainant. It appears that father-in-law of the complainant was taken into custody on 21.12.2000. Prayer for Anticipatory bail on behalf of other accused persons i.e. Pranav Kumar, Manish Kumar Ujala, husband of the complainant Pramod Kumar Maharathi and Prem Kumar Maharathi has been rejected up to the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No, 6847-6849/2001 vide order dated 3.12.2001 (Annexure-5) by a Division Bench of the Apex Court. From Annexure-6 it appears that husband of the complainant surrendered on 16.4.2002 and his prayer for bail has been rejected and it has been contended that he is still languishing in jail. The facts aforementioned goes to show that the present complaint has been maliciously instituted by the complainant and her family members with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to personal grudge.

Thus, in my opinion, continuance of criminal proceeding against the petitioners will be sheer abuse of the process of the Court. In the result, this Cr. Misc. application is allowed. The impugned order dated: 13.12.2001 passed by Sri S.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 921 of 2001/Trial No. 396 of 2002 is hereby quashed.