Shayamlal Rajak @ Shyamlal and Another vs The State of Bihar and Another

P.K. Sinha, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code"), in short for quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 144(C) of 2000 as we|| order dated 3.2.2000 whereby'' and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna had taken cognizance of offence, as well the order dated 26.6.2000 recorded by Shri B.K. Dixit, learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna under which the process was issued against the petitioners, as well the complaint, aforesaid, dated 31.1.2000. The relief has been sought on the following grounds:-

(i) That complaint Case No. 121(C) of 2000 was filed by Ram Das Thakur against the petitioner and others who both are Police Officers for occurrence dated 17.1.2000 against which the petitioners had moved this Court for quashing in Cr. Misc. No. 2911 of 2001 and this Court by order dated 30.10.2002 (Annexure-4) held that since the allegations relate of alleged kidnapping of the son of the complainant which was serious in nature, the learned Magistrate should have entrusted the investigation to a competent and impartial agency and, therefore, it was not proper to conduct enquiry of casual nature (under Section 202 of the Code). This Court also observed that the learned Magistrate should have referred the complaint to the police for registering F.I.R., and to conduct investigation. This Court, therefore, quashed the subsequent proceedings in the complaint and the matter was remitted back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna for passing fresh orders, accordingly.

(ia) Thereafter wife of Ramdas Thakur, Girija Devi, filed a second complaint case on 31.1.2000 for occurrence dated 19.1.2000 in which after inquiry accused were summoned to face the trial by order dated 28.6.2000.

(ii) Argument was that in the first complaint which was filed on 25.1.2000 for occurrence dated 17.1.2000, there was not mention of any occurrence committed on 19.1.2000 which was subject matter of the second complaint filed on 31.1.2000.

From perusal of the copy of the second complaint which is on the record, it appears that the allegation was that on the date of occurrence the petitioners and other accused broke open the door and entered into the house, and some of them assaulted the daughter of the complainant and took away various household properties.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor countering the arguments, submitted that in this case the accused persons have already been summoned after the learned Magistrate found after enquiry that there were grounds for further proceeding against the accused and this case is not a case of the nature in which the police officers and others were alleged to have kidnapped the son of the complainant. The argument was that simply because the occurrence of the second complaint were not described in the first complaint, for which a fresh case was filed only six days thereafter, that ground alone would not be sufficient for quashing the criminal proceeding in the circumstances of the case.

It is well settled as to under what circumstances a complaint or proceeding arising out of a complaint could be quashed by exercising inherent powers of this Court. It cannot be said that the allegations as made in the complaint do not disclose the ingredients of any offence, or that the allegations are such that a prudent man would consider the same to be improbable or that the taking of cognizance or the further proceedings were barred under any law. The point that in the first complaint these allegations were not referred to or that there had been a delay of filing of the complaint are points which should better be considered at the time of the trial. In that view of the matter, I don''t find that the impugned orders, or the proceedings, should be quashed. Therefore, this petition is dismissed.