AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The defect(s) as pointed out by the office be ignored.
The present quashing petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 04.08.2017 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Patna in Complaint Case No.1090(C) of 2017 dated 12.04.2017, whereby the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) against the petitioners.
The case of prosecution in brief as per complaint of one Dinesh Kumar, that he came in contact with one Shambhu Narayan Rai, the land owner in alliance with co-accused Prakash Kumar and Sanjay Kumar and alleged to paid advance of Rs. 9 lacs to Shambhu Narayan Rai, Prakash Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, who had played the part of middleman in this case. Complainant alleged to be cheated by accused persons including petitioners as land deal despite payment was not effectuated.
On the basis of solemn affirmation of the complainant and also considering the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the cognizance was taken by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate against accused persons including petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that as per complaint the allegation of cheating and also to execute the agreement available only against co-accused Shambhu Narayan Rai, where the allegation appears available against these petitioners is of snatching the wrist watch and also to assault the complainant during the occurrence and further to snatch Rs. 3,000/- from the pocket of complainant.
It is submitted that all such allegation was not believed by learned jurisdictional Magistrate while taking cognizance and, therefore, no cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 323 of the IPC against petitioners. It is submitted that petitioner no.2 Navneet Ranjan @ Navneet Kumar and petitioner no.3 Ritesh Ranjan @ Ritesh Kumar are the sons of the co-accused Shambhu Narayan Rai, who executed the agreement and their implication is only out of ulterior motive to implicate and harass Shambhu Narayan Rai. It is submitted that as the allegation of assault was not believed by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate while taking cognizance, the allegation made through complaint nowhere discloses these offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC against these petitioners and, therefore, continuity of criminal proceeding against the petitioners before the learned trial court is only amounting to abuse of the process of court of law and, therefore, the cognizance order dated 04.08.2017, as mentioned aforesaid, is fit to be quashed/set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335].
It would be apposite to reproduce paragraph No.102 of the legal report as available through Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), which is as under:-
“102.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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 view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and by taking note of the fact, as the learned trial court has disbelieved the allegation as raised against these petitioners by not taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 379 of the IPC and furthermore, the allegation of cheating is not available against these petitioners, where the implication of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 prima facie appears out of oblique motive, being the son of co-accused Shambhu Narayan Rai, accordingly, by taking a guiding note of principle nos.(1), (3) and (7) of Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), the impugned order of cognizance dated 04.08.2017, passed by learned A.C.J.M., Patna in Complaint Case No.1090(C) of 2017 dated 12.04.2017 with all its consequential proceedings qua all above-named three petitioners is hereby quashed/set aside.
The petition stands allowed.
Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned trial court forthwith.
Footnotes
- 1.AFR/NAFR NAFR
- 2.CAV DATE NA
- 3.Uploading Date 29.08.2026
- 4.Transmission Date 29.08.2026