Ramesh Prasad @ Ramesh Prasad Sah vs The State Of Bihar

Heard the parties.

Petitioner Ramesh Prasad @ Ramesh Prasad Sah got

settlement of a stall bearing no.A/17 from Nagar Parishad, Khagaria

in the year 2002 for business purpose. After sometimes, he allegedly

let-out the same to the opposite party no.2, Sonelal Chaudhary. In the

year, 2010 petitioner Ramesh Prasad wanted vacation of the said

premise by the opposite party no.2. The dispute and allegation led to

Khagaria P.S. Case No.342 of 2010 against the opposite party no.2

alleging therein that on 08.03.2010 the opposite party no.2 forcefully

broke open the lock of the aforesaid stall and took possession of the

same. The opposite party no.2 lodged Khagaria P.S. Case No.343 of

2010 alleging therein that the petitioner was demanding more money

in the nature of ransom to allow the opposite party no.2 to do business

at the said place and on refusal committed the occurrence of assault

and theft etc. besides offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Another criminal case was lodged by

the opposite party no.2 vide Begusarai SC/ST P.S. Case No.40 of

2010 against the petitioner Ramesh Prasad.

Ultimately, the settlement of shop in favour of the

petitioner Ramesh Prasad was cancelled by Nagar Parishad, Khagaria

on the ground of violation of the terms of settlement i.e. subletting the

same and not utilizing for own purpose. The aforesaid fact would be

evident from the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2.

In the background of the aforesaid relationship

between the parties, the opposite party no.2 initially filed Begusarai

SC/ST P.S. Case No.40 of 2010 dated 08.03.2010 against the sole

petitioner Ramesh Prasad @ Ramesh Prasad Sah for the offences

under Sections 341, 323, 504, 385, 427, 379 and 34 of the Indian

Penal Code as well as under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act with allegation that the opposite party no.2 was

running a toddy shop near railway godown on the land of Nagar

Parishad. On 08.03.2010, the petitioner came thereat along with an

unknown person and asked to pay Rs.3,000/- per month, then the

informant retorted that the land is of the municipality and he is

already paying Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner. Hence, he will

not pay more money. On that, the petitioner abused by taking caste

name of the informant and damaged the toddy etc. After investigation

of the case, the police submitted final form no.27/11 dated 06.02.2011

stating therein that the case is untrue. The opposite party no.2 had

already filed protest petition in the case on 10.03.2011 itself which

was treated as Complaint Case No.797C/11 and after enquiry under

Section 202 Cr.P.C. the learned court below issued summons against

the petitioner to face the trial for the offences under Sections 379,

341, 323, 427, 387 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid

order of issuance of process dated 26.11.2012 is under challenge in

Cr.Misc.No.13696 of 2013 aforesaid.

The opposite party no.2 had filed another case against

the petitioners of Cr.Misc.No.1685 of 2015 bearing Khagaria P.S.

Case No.343 of 2010 dated 14.08.2010. In this case also, allegation

against the petitioners is that on 14.08.2010 the petitioners came to the

shop of the informant and asked the opposite party no.2 by taking his

caste name to vacate the shop. On refusal, they committed assault.

There is allegation against the petitioner Ratnesh Kumar of firing

though the same got misfired. Thereafter, crowd assembled and the

accused persons fled away committing theft of Rs.1200/- from the

pocket of opposite party no.2.

After investigation of this case also, the police

submitted final form no.185/12 dated 30.04.2012 stating that the case

is false one. In this case also, a protest petition was already on the

record filed on 20.08.2010. The court below considered the final form

and accepted the same by order dated 20.02.2012 and treated the

protest petition as Complaint Case No.188C of 2013. After enquiry

under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the petitioners were issued summons to

face the trial for the offences under Sections 379 and 504 of the Indian

Penal Code as well as under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act by the impugned order dated 13.10.2014 which is

under challenge in Cr.Misc.No.1685 of 2015.

With consent of the parties, both the aforesaid

applications were heard together as the parties involved are same and

question for consideration is also the same.

Contention of the petitioners is that the opposite party

no.2, while filing both the aforesaid cases, suppressed the material

fact regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

and just to put undue pressure on the petitioners to not to ask the

opposite party no.2 to vacate the shop the criminal cases were lodged

which suffers from malafide and continuance of the same would

amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Further contention is that

there is no material brought on the record to substantiate that the

complaint cases were fit to be proceeded with though the police had

found the allegations untrue after investigation of both the cases.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits

that once the Magistrate found the allegations prima facie true against

the petitioners, after due enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., this Court

should not exercise its discretion to interfere with the same merely on

the statement of the petitioners.

Now the point for consideration is whether in view

of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the

admission that the occurrence allegedly took place for dispute relating

to the aforesaid shop which was admittedly settled in the name of

petitioner Ramesh Prasad and no paper of settlement is in favour of

opposite party no.2 as well as in view of the finding of the

investigating agency that the allegations are untrue, can it be said that

the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or

the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for

wreaking vengeance on the accused.

In the State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported

in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 one of the circumstance enumerated by the

Hon''ble Apex Court for quashing the criminal prosecution under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. was to see whether the criminal proceeding in

question is manifestly attended with malafide and/or the same is

maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance

on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and

personal grudge.

In the present case, the opposite party no.2 had

suppressed the real relationship between the parties while lodging

both the criminal cases against the petitioners. The opposite party no.2

could vomit only in the counter affidavit regarding settlement of the

shop in favour of the petitioner Ramesh Prasad only to bring to the

notice of the court that the said settlement has already been cancelled

by the competent authority for the reason of subletting of the same to

the opposite party no.2. Therefore, relationship of landlord and tenant

between the parties is admitted.

In Chandrapal Singh Vs. Maharaj Singh

reported in 1982 SCC (Cri.) 249 there was relationship of landlord

and tenant between the parties and criminal proceedings were

launched by the frustrated landlord against the tenant after losing

before the Civil Court. The Hon''ble Apex Court noticed that the

tendency of perjury is very much on the increase. Unless the courts

come down heavily upon such persons, the whole judicial process

would come to ridicule. The Court also observed that chagrined and

frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their

frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal court.

What this Court finds in the present applications

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that the opposite party no.2 did not come

up with clean hands disclosing real background of the allegation and

real nature of allegation while lodging the criminal cases respectively.

Within few days of registration of the respective police cases at

different stations protest petitions were filed. The police after

investigation found the allegations untrue. Thereafter, on protest

petition the matter processed and the opposite party no.2 has not

brought on the record the material on the basis whereof the impugned

orders summoning the petitioners would be justified. The record further reveals that after cancellation of the settlement in favour of the

petitioner the opposite party no.2 has vacated the said premise and the

real dispute between the parties is over. Therefore, in my view,

continuance of both the aforesaid criminal proceedings between the

parties suffers from malafide and would amount to abuse of the

process of the Court.

Hence, both the impugned orders aforesaid stand

quashed and both the criminal miscellaneous applications stand

allowed.