AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 68 of 2013, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation in the complaint is that the complainant, who is an Advocate, had gone to the office of the District Sub-Registrar, Katihar for registration of certain documents along with his clients. It is alleged that the petitioner, who was posted as District Sub-Registrar, abused the complainant, directed him to leave the office and threatened him. It is further alleged that the petitioner had instructed the office staff not to register documents presented through the complainant.
In support of the complaint, the complainant examined himself and four inquiry witnesses. On the basis of the said materials, the learned court below, by the impugned order dated 23.05.2018, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Sections 500, 506 and 120B of the IPC was made out and directed issuance of summons to the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire prosecution has been instituted with an ulterior motive. It is submitted that the complainant was insisting upon registration of documents which, according to the petitioner, were not liable to be registered without payment of the proper registration fee. Since the petitioner did not accede to the demand of the complainant, the present complaint was instituted as a means of exerting pressure upon the petitioner and the office staff.
It is further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are not supported by the persons whose documents were allegedly presented for registration. None of the executants, purchasers or document holders concerned has lodged any complaint alleging that the petitioner had illegally refused registration or had threatened or abused them. The entire allegation has been raised only by the complainant, who himself was an Advocate appearing in connection with the proposed registration.
This Court is conscious of the fact that at the stage of taking cognizance it is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of the evidence. However, the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind to the allegations and the material placed before him before summoning an accused.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the Magistrate is required to examine the allegations and the material placed before him before issuing process. The order summoning an accused cannot be passed mechanically.
In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are essentially based upon the alleged incident in the office of the District Sub-Registrar. However, the persons directly concerned with the documents allegedly presented for registration have not come forward with any complaint against the petitioner. The absence of any complaint from the persons whose documents were allegedly sought to be registered is a relevant circumstance while examining the genuineness of the prosecution case.
Further, the materials available on record indicate that the dispute arose in course of the proposed registration of documents and the petitioner was discharging his official duties as District Sub-Registrar. The complaint, therefore, has to be examined in the background of the circumstances in which it came to be instituted.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has illustrated the categories of cases in which the extraordinary power of the High Court can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law. One such category is guideline no. 07, where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused.
On consideration of the allegations in the complaint, the statements recorded during inquiry and the surrounding circumstances, this Court finds that the present proceeding bears the features contemplated in the aforesaid principles laid down in Bhajan Lal Case (supra). The criminal proceeding appears to have been initiated not for redressal of any genuine grievance of the persons whose documents were allegedly presented for registration, but on account of the dispute between the complainant and the petitioner in relation to the functioning of the registration office.
The mere allegation that the petitioner abused the complainant or directed him to leave the office, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot by itself justify continuation of a criminal proceeding for the offences alleged, particularly when the persons directly concerned with the documents have not alleged any such misconduct against the petitioner.
The materials also do not disclose any clear and specific basis for the allegation of conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC. The allegation of conspiracy cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the presence or official interaction of the petitioner with the other persons in the office. There must be some material indicating an agreement to commit an illegal act or to commit a legal act by illegal means.
This Court is not entering into an appreciation of the evidence or recording a finding on the truthfulness of the respective versions. The question is only whether, on the allegations and materials placed before the learned court below, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would serve the ends of justice.
Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the circumstances in which the complaint came to be instituted, the absence of any complaint by the persons directly concerned with the documents and the apparent motive behind the institution of the proceeding, and by taking note of guidelines no. 7 of Bhajan Lal Case (supra), this Court is of the view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
In view of aforesaid, the order taking cognizance dated 23.05.2018 passed in Complaint Case No. 68 of 2013 by the learned A.C.J.M.-V, Katihar, is hereby quashed and set-aside qua petitioner.
Accordingly, this quashing petition stands allowed.
Let a copy of this judgment alongwith TCR, if any, be sent to the learned trial court.