IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr. Misc. No.6471 of 2009
1. SHASHI SHEKHAR THAKUR, Son of Late Krishna Mohan
Thakur, Ex-Branch Manager, LIC of India, Gopalganj, presently
posted at Shillong Branch of LIC of India, P.O., P.S. & District
Shillong (Guwahati).
2. Someshwar Ram, Son of Late Sheodhari Ram, Ex-Administrative
Officer, LIC of India, Gopalganj Branch, presently posted at
Jhanjharpur Branch of LIC of India, P.O., P.S. & District -
Jhanjharpur (Madhubani).
3. Amit Singh @ Amit Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Thakur Singh
working as Daily Wager in the Gopalganj Branch of LIC of India,
P.O., P.S. & District - Gopalganj.
...... Accused - Petitioners.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. Sanjay Kumar Abhay, Son of Sri Vindhyachal Dubey, resident of
village - Bangra, P.S. - Kuchaikot, District - Gopalganj.
....... Complainant - Opp. Party No. 2.
-----------
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Advocate.
For the O.P. :- None.
For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhya, A.P.P.
03/ 24.01.2011 This is a petition for quashing the order
dated 01.08.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate,
Gopalganj in Trial No. 1380 of 2009 arising out of
Complaint Case No. 500 of 2006 by which the process has
been issued against the accused persons after taking
cognizance for offence under Section 323 and 379 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case as alleged in the
2
complaint petition by the complainant claiming to be the
reporter of Gopalganj Times now English T.V. Channel
who published news in English is that one Harihar Prasad
who is the witness in the case came and alleged that
Rs.500/- is being demanded as bribe for granting him a
cheque of Rs.12,500/- which has matured under the money
back policy. It is alleged that the complainant along with
his secret camera went to the Branch Manager and
reported that Rs.500/- is being demanded for the said
cheque. It is alleged that the accused no. 1 Shashi Shekhar
Thakur, Ex-Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation
of India, Gopalganj said that a demand is only for Rs.500/-
otherwise really Rs.1000/- is taken for encashment and
hence advised to pay. It is further alleged that thereafter
the Branch Manager called accused no. 2 Someshwar Ram
in his Chamber and asked Harihar Prasad to pay him
Rs.500/- and it is alleged that Harihar Prasad paid Rs.500/-
to accused no. 2 which was also recorded in the camera. It
is alleged that accused no. 3 and alleged to be the peon in
the said office and made a Halla that the complainant is a
Journalist and he is giving the bribe to make out a news
and on which the accused no. 1 caught hold of the collar
3
and then a physical altercation took place and it is alleged
that he threw away the camera kept in the pocket of the
complainant on the ground by which the camera got
damaged and during forgery and physical altercation it is
alleged that Rs.2,500/- was taken away by the peon from
the pocket of the informant and the complainant and the
witness was thrown out and the damaged camera was not
provided.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners,
however, contended that the complaint is false, fictitious
and mala fide and there was no occasion for the Journalist
to enter into the premises and the allegation about the
assault and taking out the money by the peon to the tune of
Rs.2,500/- is malicious and not believable and is so absurd
and inherently improbable that no prudent man can ever
believe it and even description of the camera has not been
mentioned in the complaint petition. However, the
petitioner no. 1 is the Branch Manager, petitioner no. 2 is
the Administrative Officer and petitioner no. 3 is the Peon.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners,
however, contended that the allegation regarding the
assault is omnibus and not specific who assaulted him and
4
the specification of the camera has not been mentioned.
5. However, taking into consideration the fact
there is allegation that a demand of Rs.500/- made for
encashing the money back policy to the tune of
Rs.12,500/- and in this connection the petitioner
complainant being the Journalist went along with the
witness alleged to have taken photograph and it is alleged
that the camera was damaged and even was not returned
but the specification of the camera has not been made nor
any case instituted before the police for the said camera
and to a court question has stated that he got camera from
the Company and he has not lodged any case in police
station regarding the theft of camera.
6. However, taking into consideration the fact
and circumstance, the petitioner entered into the premises
for taking photograph and thereafter the allegation of
assault is vague and the only allegation that the Branch
Manager caught hold of collar of complainant and threw
the camera, there is further allegation of snatching of
Rs.2500/- by peon.
7. However, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, though the point is raised that
5
the prosecution is mala fide to spit vengeance but this
court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. has no jurisdiction to examine the
correctness or otherwise of the allegation at this stage and
fact alleged cannot be tested at the out set or in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection. When fact
alleged make out an offence then mala fide of informant
would be of secondary importance and cannot themselves
be the basis for quashing and not to embark the allegations
likely to be established or not and hence under the facts
and circumstances, I do not find fit to interfere with the
impugned order and hence the petition is dismissed.
Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)