Bijay Kumar Mishra @ Vijay Mishra vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 4971 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.512 of 2022
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2019 Thana- BARSOI District- Katihar
======================================================

Bijay Kumar Mishra @ Vijay Mishra Son of Late Raghunath Mishra Resident of Mohalla - Mirchai Bari, P.S. Katihar Sahayak, District- Katihar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA CAV JUDGMENT Date : 27.09.2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing

the order dated 09.03.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate VI, Katihar in connection with Barsoi P.S.

Case No. 75 of 2019. The learned Court below has been please

to take cognizance against the petitioner and one other accused

person under Sections 506, 353, 427, 166, 120(B)/34 of the

Indian Penal Code .

3. According to the prosecution case, the co-accused,

Rajendra Ravidas in intoxicated condition threw the records

from the table on the informant who was signing the order sheet

in his chamber and also threatened him for dire consequences. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.512 of 2022 dt.27-09-2023

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from

perusal of the contents of the F.I.R it appears that while the

informant was signing the order sheets of the records of the case

in his chamber, his peon came in the chamber in drunken

condition and threw the records on the ground and shouted that

why he had issued show caused against him and why he was

writing against the petitioner (then Nazeer). Thereafter, the peon

threw the order sheets of some cases and threatened the

informant of dire consequences and fled away from the chamber

of the informant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that it is clear from the F.I.R itself that the petitioner was not

present at the place of occurrence and there was no acquisition

against the petitioner and co-accused, namely, Rajendra Ravidas

only asked the informant that why he was writing against the

petitioner. Even in this further statement, the informant uttered

the same version and no allegation has been made against the

petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that even not a single judicial officer or staff of the concerned

Court have supported the case of the prosecution and it is clear

from the F.I.R itself that the petitioner was then Nazeer of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.512 of 2022 dt.27-09-2023

Barsoi Civil Court and one of the peon, Rajendra Ravidas (who

is co-accused in the present occurrence) had filed a complaint

petition against the present informant before the learned District

and Sessions Judge, Katihar on 25.03.2019 (Annexure 2) and

the informant in retaliation has filed the present case on

30.03.2019 and the same was instituted on 01.04.2019.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that no material has come during investigation against the

petitioner except some outside witnesses who are not the

employee of the Civil Court. The informant is judicial officer,

as such without collecting the proper/ any material against the

petitioner, the prosecution has submitted in mechanical manner

charge sheet against the petitioner and the learned Magistrate

without applying his judicial mind took cognizance in

mechanical manner against the petitioner perhaps only on the

ground that the informant is also a judicial officer.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the present case is fully covered with the case of Bhajan Lal

reported in 1992 (supplementary) 1 SCC Page 335, he has

referred the paragraphs;

102 (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations

made in the F.I.R or complaint and the evidence Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.512 of 2022 dt.27-09-2023

collected in support of the same do not disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a case

against the accused.

(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 accused.

(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.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

in view of the aforesaid, the continuance of the present

proceeding will cost loss and injury to the petitioner and as such

for the end of the justice, it is just proper to set aside the order

impugned which is not sustainable in the eye of the law as well

as on the fact.

10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.512 of 2022 dt.27-09-2023

order impugned is correct and accordance with law and the

petitioner may face the trial and prove his innocence in

accordance with law.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order

dated 09.03.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate VI, Katihar in connection with Barsoi P.S. Case No.

75 of 2019 is not sustained in the eye of law and it is nothing

but abuse of the process of law, is hereby set aside and the

quashing application stands allowed.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                24.11.2022
Uploading Date          27.09.2023
Transmission Date       27.09.2023