CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.322 OF 2004
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.)
RAJ KUMAR SINGH, SON OF KANHAIYA SINGH, RESIDENT OF
DALSAGAR, P.O. BUXAR, P.S. BUXAR, DISTT. BUXAR.
-------- PETITIONER.
Versus
1. STATE OF BIHAR
2. SRI GOPAL SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMPUJAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF
DALSAGAR, P.S. BUXAR (INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT - BUXAR.
-------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
------------
For the petitioner : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. B.J. Ojha, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Pandey, A.P.P.
———-
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH
Anjana Prakash, J: Heard.
This is an application for quashing the order dated
22.8.2003, passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Buxer, in
Cr. Revision No. 174 of 2003 by which he has dismissed the
application of the petitioner against the order dated 31.7.2003
passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Buxar, in Complaint
Case No. 221(C) of 2003, Trial No. 1460 of 2003 by which he
has taken cognizance under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, 120B
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in so far as the petitioner is
concerned.
On 18.5.2005, notices were issued to the opposite
party no. 2 and further proceeding in the court below was
2
stayed. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 appeared through a
validly executed Vakalatnama and is present in Court.
The case of the Complainant is that one accused
Santosh Kumar Singh prepared certain documents showing
that he was the Complainant’s son. In some documents,
allegedly the petitioner as a lawyer had identified him as being
the son of Gopal Singh.
The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he
being an Advocate, on production of certain documents before
him, he had identified the co-accused Santosh Singh as the son
of the Complainant and he did not stand to gain in any manner
even if he did so wrongfully. The further submission is that there
is total absence of any ‘mens rea’ attributed to the petitioner in
the identification of the co-accused as the son of the
Complainant and hence, no offence whatsoever is made out
against the petitioner.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 contends that the petitioner happened to
be a co-villager of the said co-accused Santosh Singh and he
was hand in glove with him and, therefore, the proceeding
against him may not be quashed.
In my view, the entire Complaint against the
petitioner is totally misplaced since there is total absence of
‘mens rea’ on the part of the petitioner in identifying the co-
accused as son of the Complainant. Moreover, a number of
3
documents have been filed with the present petition including
the service book of the Complainant which shows one Santosh
as his son and, therefore, in my view, the Complaint so far the
petitioner is concerned, is nothing but an abuse of the process
of court.
In view of such, this application is allowed and the
proceeding, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, in
Complaint Case No. 221 (C) of 2003, Trial No. 1460 of 2003, is
hereby quashed.
( Anjana Prakash, J.)
Patna High Court, Patna
Dated, the 23rd July, 2010
NAFR/S.ALI