JUDGMENT
S.S. Shamsul Hasan, J.
1. This application has been filed against an order, dated 1-3-1985 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Patna, by which order he has taken cognizance of the offence Under Sections 418 and 506, IPC and summoned the accused petitioner and Anr. accused to stand their trial. The circumstances leading to this order are not only peculiar but distressing, and if I may say so, at the very outset, a more colossal example of the abuse of the process of the Court could not have been available.
2. The petitioner was a first informant in a case in which the complainant is an accused along with others for an allegedly committed offence Under Sections 307, 325 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code. While this case was being tried in the Court of Vth Assistant Sessions Judge Patna, a transfer petition was filed before the District and Sessions Judge, Patna, for the transfer of that criminal trial being Sessions Trial No. 22/81 by Sakaldeo Pujari (P.W. 4). Surprisingly, opposite party in that transfer petition were three persons who were accused in the aforesaid trial along with the petitioner. They are Ramdeo Roy, Lai Babu Roy and Ramashanker Roy who were opposite party 2 to 4. The 1st opposite party was the State of Bihar. For reasons best known to the petitioner, Sakaldeo Pujari, he had not made the informant a party in that application. Notice was then issued by the learned District and Sessions Judge which was handed over to the process server Tejendra Prasad Singh (P.W. I).
3. The prosecution story hereafter culled out from the complaint petition and the evidence of the witnesses makes interesting reading. The process server is met by Sakaldeo Pujari who is P.W. 4 and the petitioner of the transfer petition as aforesaid. He has deposed that he informed the process server (P.W. 1) that the persons to whom the notices are to be delivered do not live in the address given in the notice. The place where P.W. 4 met the process server is not clearly mentioned. Suddenly, the petitioner manifests himself at the scene, takes away the process server to his house at Boring Canal Road, presents three imposters representing the aforesaid three opposite party, obtains their refusals, gets notice pasted at the house of these persons misleading the process server to believe houses to be belonging to the persons to whom police was to be served and then affixes his signature as an identifying witness along with that of another accused and all this in the full view of P.W. 4 who watches the drama without interjection. When the complainant came to the Court, he heard of the case being transferred to another Court. On inquiry, he came to know of what had happened behind his back. Quite some time thereafter the complainant met the petitioner in Court and enquired of his act of criminality and mischief. On this, the petitioner is said to have showered abuses on him and threatened him to get him convicted. Then a complaint was filed as I have said above and an inquiry Under Section 202, Cr.PC. was held in which five witnesses in all were examined. P.W. I, as aforesaid is Tejendra Prasad Singh who Is a process server in this case. P.W. 2 is Lai Babu Ram who has denied the receipt of the notice and consequently his refusal. He has said that he is a resident of Rambad and on the fateful day he was at, his house and not at Boring Canal Road. P.W. 3 Deo Narain Jha who has supported the case of the complainant about the petitioner’s showering abuses on the complainant. P.W. 4 Sakaldeo Pujari is the person who has filed the transfer petition has deposed to the entire episode P.W. 5 Ganesh Roy is the person on whose house the notice was pasted. His further statement is that he has informed the service peon that the three persons on whom the notice was required to be served did not live at the address for the last ten years.
4. Two interesting aspects emerge from this statement-why the process server did not immediately refrain from proceeding further in the matter and secondly why the P, W. 4 Sakaldeo Pujari furnished an address on which the co-accused have ceased to live for the last ten years. It is well settled, in the light of the several decisions of the Supreme Court one of which was relied on by Mr. Umashanker Prasad, learned Counsel for the opposite party viz. Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Base and Anr. that while the court issues summonses, it cannot assume the role of a trial Court to examine the instrinsic value of the evidence brought on the record in an inquiry Under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the statement of the complainant on oath and the complaint. It has got to find that there is sufficient ground for proceeding Under Section 204, Cr.PC Salient features, in my view which completely destroy the element of sufficiency of grounds are as follows:-
(i) Why did the petitioner of the transfer petition (P.W. 4) furnish incorrect addresses of the accused opposite party?
(ii) After having met the process server before the petitioner had met him, why did P.W. 4 not furnish the correct address to the process server ?
(iii) Why did P.W. 4 allow the process server to be taken away by the petitioner who was known to the P.W. 4 before the informant ?
(iv) Why did P. Ws. 4 and 5 stand by watching the activities of the petitioner including the pasting of the notice on a wrong house.
(v) Why did the process server not refrain from proceeding with the service of notice when he had been told by P.W. 5 that the addressee of the notice did not reside at the addresses for the last ten years ?
(vi) How did the process server manifest himself near the second incident of the occurrence ? and
(vii) The last but not least, why the oringinal service report, which is said to have been signed by the petitioner and Anr. was not produced in the inquiry Under Section 202, Cr.PC marked exhibit and the correctness of the signature verified?
The answer to all these questions is just one that the whole story is an unilmaginative manufacture to crucify the petitioner for filing a criminal case against P.W. 4, the complainant and other. 1 say unimaginative because the complainant has not been imaginative enough to fill in the loop holes of brazen falsehood.
5. Lastly, in regard to the applicability of the two Sections namely Sections 418 and 506, IPC to the allegation, I am at a loss to ascertain how when it is not alleged that the petitioner impersonated as any one else except as himself, Section 418 applies and as regards Section 506, I.P.C. the court lost complete sight of the fact that admittedly, in the complaint provocation came from the complainant himself who accused the petitioner of having acted criminally and mischievously.
6. Taking a cumulative view of the circumstances, I am fully satisfied that not only there was no sufficient ground for the proceeding in the matter but the launching of the entire prosecution is mala fide. I, therefore, allow this application and set aside the impugned order as also the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioner. Since the record is before me, and also the evidence, on a consideration of all that the prosecution has brought on the record, I feel that the continuance of the proceeding against another accused namely, Ajoy Kumar Pandey, who is not the petitioner here, should also be quashed. There appears to be no specific allegation or otherwise against him. I do so in suo motu excercise of revisional power of this Court. The prosecution, therefore, as far as accused Ajoy Kumar Pandey is concerned is also quashed.