AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2.
The petitioners are accused in connection with Complaint Case No.1090 of 2013 wherein the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur East, took cognizance for the offences under Sections 323,341 and 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and issued summons to face trial by order dated 03.02.2015.
Challenge is on the ground that for the occurrence of the same day i.e., 02.05.2013, the complainant had filed a written information to the local police station alleging therein that the petitioners came armed with lathi, spear etc. and abused to the informant and damaged the house. It is further disclosed that a civil suit is going on between the parties for the said land. Annexure-2 is copy of the plaint of Partition Suit No. 404 of 2010 and the written report of the complainant to the police dated 03.05.2013 at Annexure-3.
Submission is that in the written report to the police there is no submission that the petitioners committed assault and theft in the house of the informant as alleged in the complaint petition filed on 07.05.2013. Further submission is that it has falsely been stated that in the complaint petition that police has not taken action on the report of the complainant to the police whereas the record reveals that preventive proceeding was recommended by the police vide Annexure-3A. Therefore, apparently, the present complaint petition is an afterthought and concocted matter just to harass the petitioners.
Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 submits that at the stage of cognizance the Court-below is not expected to enter into the trustworthy of the averments made in the complaint petition and the of statement of the witnesses examined during inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned order requires no interference.
It is evident from the record that for the occurrence of the same day i.e., 02.05.2013, a written report was submitted to the police on 03.05.2013 wherein there is no averment that the petitioners had committed assault and theft; whereas in the complaint petition filed after four days such bald allegation has been leveled.
Allowing litigant like O.P. No.2 to place before the Court anything at anytime at his desire would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the impugned order and subsequent proceeding is quashed and this application stands allowed.