High Court Patna High Court

Nand Kishore Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar on 6 September, 2010

Patna High Court
Nand Kishore Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar on 6 September, 2010
Author: Rakesh Kumar
               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6848 OF 2003
                                ----

In the matter of an application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

—-

NAND KISHORE PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE BRIJ NANDAN
SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BUSHWAR, P.S. BIBHUTIPUR,
DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR.

                  ...                ...  PETITIONER.
                               Versus
          THE STATE OF BIHAR          ... OPPOSITE PARTY.
                                ----
          For the Petitioner     : Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Adv.
          For the State          : Mrs.Anita Kumari Singh,A.P.P.
                                ----
                            P R E S E N T

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR

—-

Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner, while invoking

inherent jurisdiction of this Court under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an

order dated 18.12.2002 passed by the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Mansoorchak

Non F.I.R. No.1 of 2002. By the said order,

the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance

of the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of

the Indian Penal Code.

2. Short fact of the case is that on

the basis of written report submitted by the

petitioner, an F.I.R. vide Mansoorchak P.S.

Case No.106 of 2002 was registered on

7.9.2002 for the offence under Section 379 of

the Indian Penal Code against three named

accused persons. It was alleged in the F.I.R.
2

that while the informant was returning by a

Scooter, the three named accused persons

intercepted the informant and they took

forcibly Scooter as well as Rs.12,000/- from

the pocket of the petitioner. In the first

information report, the informant has also

disclosed that the accused persons while

forcibly taking away Rs.12,000/- from the

pocket of the informant, had said that since

the accused persons were earlier made

accused, for the legal expenses it was

necessary to take money. After registering

F.I.R., police thoroughly investigated the

same. During investigation, it was found that

due to old litigations, the present case was

cooked up by the informant and as such a

final report was submitted mentioning therein

the case as un-true. Besides filing final

report, the police also lodged prosecution

report vide Mansoorchak Non F.I.R. No.1 of

2002 on 31.10.2000. After filing of the

complaint, the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, by its order dated 18.12.2002,

took cognizance of offence under Sections 182

and 211 of the Indian Penal Code and

transferred the case to the court of Shri

K.K. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,
3

Begusarai.

3. Aggrieved with the order of

cognizance and proceeding, the petitioner

approached this Court by filing the present

petition. It was admitted on 20.10.2003.

While admitting, it was directed that during

the pendency of this application, further

proceeding pending in the court of the

Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Begusarai in

Tr. No.1125 of 2003 shall remain stayed.

Order of stay is still continuing.

            4.        Learned              counsel            for      the

petitioner,           while          pressing           the     present

petition,        submits             that        even     while        the

investigation         was       going       on,    the     petitioner

was   apprehending              that       police       may     not     do

justice with the investigation and as such he

had filed a protest petition. Learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that once protest

petition was filed, the learned Magistrate

was not required to proceed with the case

against the petitioner and as such the order

of cognizance is liable to be set aside.

5. Smt. Anita Kumari Singh, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of

the petitioner.

4

6. Besides hearing learned counsel

for the parties, I have also perused the

materials available on record. Along with the

petition, there is nothing on record to show

as to whether protest petition was ever

treated as complaint case nor it has been

argued by learned counsel for the petitioner

that protest petition was treated as

complaint case and court has proceeded with

the complaint case. In absence of such

material, the court is of the view that while

taking cognizance, by its order dated

18.12.2002, the learned Magistrate has

committed no error. I do not find any merit

in the present petition and petition stands

rejected.

7. In view of rejection of this

petition, interim order of stay dated

20.10.2003 stands automatically vacated.

8. Let a copy of this order be sent

to the court below forthwith.

( Rakesh Kumar,J.)

PATNA HIGH COURT
Dated 6.9.2010
N.A.F.R./N.H.