IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.15499 of 2008
1. AMARJIT KAUR, W/O BHAGAN SINGH DHIR @ PACHAN SINGH
2. BHAJAN SINGH @ PACHAN SINGH, S/O LATE AATAMA SINGH
BOTH RESIDENT OF F.NO.114/115 LAJPAT NAGAR, P.S.
LAJPAT NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110024.
3. JITENDRA SINGH BAMI @ JITENDRA KAUR, W/O SARDAR
MANIDRA SINGH BAMI, RESIDENT OF H27 KOTHI NO.2 GALI
NO.8, WESTERN AVENUE SAINIK FARM KHANPUR, NEW DELHI
110062.
4. MD. SURJIT KAUR, W/O LATE KAMALJIT SINGH
5. KARAN DIP SINGH, S/O LATE KAMALJIT SINGH.
BOTH RESIDENT OF 217 B.K. CAMP, DHAKA VILLAGE NEAR
OM DAIRY, NEW DELHI 110009.
... ... PETITIONERS.
Versus
1. STATE OF BIHAR
2. DAVINDRA KAUR @ SATNAM KAUR, D/O LATE BALWANTE, WIFE
OF TEJPAL SINGH @ TEJPAL SINGH DHIR, RESIDENT OF
BABAREKI GATE, P.S. CHOWK, DIST. PATNA.
... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES.
-----------
3. 28.6.2010. Five petitioners, while invoking
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order
dated 29.1.2008 passed by Sri D. Ram,
Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna city in
Complaint Case No.660 of 2007. By the said
order, the learned Magistrate, on the basis
of complaint petition, after examination of
complainant and four witnesses, has taken
cognizance of the offences under Sections
323, 341, 504 and 354 of the Indian Penal
Code and summoned the petitioners to face
trial.
Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior
2
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, while pressing the petition,
submits that the present complaint petition
was filed maliciously against the
petitioners, who are resident of Delhi. It
was argued that opposite party no.2, who was
wife of Tej Pal, son of petitioner nos.1 and
2, earlier had filed a criminal case against
her husband and all the five petitioners vide
Chowk P.S. Case No.149 of 2007 under Sections
498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In the
present case, allegation against the
petitioners is that while the petitioners had
appeared in a court at Patna city for
executing bail bonds and they were returning,
the complainant was abused and assaulted by
all the accused persons. Learned Senior
Counsel submits that for quashing the
criminal case which was lodged against the
petitioners and husband of the complainant
two petitions were filed vide Cr. Misc.
No.52222 of 2007 and Cr. Misc. No.53384 of
2007 and a Bench of this Court by its order
dated 19.3.2010 has quashed the entire
criminal proceeding of Chowk P.S. Case No.149
of 2007 except the case of husband of the
complainant Tejpal Singh, who was not the
3
petitioner. On this strength, it was argued
that even earlier prosecution was malicious
and due to that reason it was quashed by this
Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has further argued that petitioner nos.1 and
2 are old persons and they were not in a
position to indulge in such offence. Learned
counsel for the petitioners has also referred
to paragraph-11 of the petition to impress
upon the court that all the petitioners were
not in a position to indulge in such offence.
In paragraph-11, it has been stated that
petitioner no.4 is Mousi of the complainant
and she was posted as Junior Judicial
Assistant in Delhi High Court.
Mr. Equbal Asif Neyazi, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party
no.2, submits that even prior to the filing
of the present complaint petition, the
brother of the complainant had filed an
Informatory petition before S.H.O. Sarswati
Police Station, New Delhi. He further submits
that there is no point to challenge the order
of cognizance on the ground of so called
malicious prosecution. It was submitted that
occurrence was witnessed by several
independent witnesses and, accordingly, at
4
the enquiry stage, altogether four witnesses
were examined, who had categorically
supported the case of the complainant. It was
further argued that at this initial stage,
this Court may not interfere with the case.
Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the State has also opposed the
prayer of the petitioners.
Besides hearing learned counsel for
the parties, I have also examined the
materials available on record. This Court is
not inclined to interfere with the order of
cognizance. It is opinion of this Court that
Code of Criminal Procedure is a self
contained Code and there is already remedy
available in the Code to the petitioners and
as such, at this initial stage of cognizance,
it is not proper for this Court to interfere
with the order of cognizance. The order of
cognizance was passed in the month of
January,2008. This Court is of the opinion
that it is not an exceptional case warranting
exercise of inherent jurisdiction in favour
of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition
stands rejected.
It is made clear that rejection of
5
the petition will not prejudice either of the
parties since this Court has rejected the
present petition mainly on the ground that
there is already remedy available in the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
In view of rejection of this
petition, the order of stay dated 19.9.2008
Md.S.
stands automatically vacated.
( Rakesh Kumar,J.)