Patna High Court
Pinthalanickal Joseph Thomas @ P.J. ... vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 16 January, 2024
Author: Satyavrat Verma
Bench: Satyavrat Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52515 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-660 Year-2016 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Pinthalanickal Joseph Thomas @ P.J. Thomas Son of Mr. P.J. Joseph,
2. Sherly Thomas @ Sellari Miss, Wife of Pinthalanickal Joseph Thomas (P.J.
Thomas),
3. Mitu Kumari (Pragya Thomas), D/o Pinthalanickal Joseph Thomas (P.J.
Thomas), All are resident of Das Brother's Colony, Ghasiyari Gali, P.S.-
Alamganj, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Chandra Bhushan Verma, Son of Late Triloki Prasad Verma, Resident of Dr.
Mashuk Ali Road, Patna City, P.S.- Khajekalan, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Thakur, Advocate
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-01-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
opposite party no. 2 has received the notice and thereafter
appointed learned Advocate Mr. Binoy Kumar Sinha No. 1 to
represent him but the case was taken on 08.01.2024 when no one
had appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, thereafter again
the case was taken up on 10.01.2024 when no one appeared on
behalf of the opposite party no. 2, today also no one appears on
behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52515 of 2018 dt.16-01-2024
3. Since no one is appearing on behalf of the opposite
party no. 2 as such the Court cannot wait endlessly for the learned
lawyer to appear in the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
present quashing application initially was filed seeking quashing
of the order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 457 of 2017 whereby the order
dated 15.07.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Patna City in Complaint Case No. 660 of 2016
whereby complaint was dismissed under Section 204 of the
Cr.P.C., due to non-filing of requisites Talbana within time was set
aside and the opposite party no. 2 herein was permitted to file the
requisites as directed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Patna City by his order dated 15.07.2017 thus the
order by which cognizance was taken revived.
5. Learned counsel further submits that during the
pendency of the quashing application, I.A. No. 02 of 2023 was
filed seeking quashing of the entire complaint case and the copy of
the same was also served on the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, I.A. No. 02 of 2023 is allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52515 of 2018 dt.16-01-2024
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
case has a chequered history. It is further submitted that petitioner
no. 1 herein had instituted Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 76 of 2016
against the opposite party no. 2 and others. In retaliation of the
same, the opposite party no. 2 herein instituted Khajekalan P.S.
Case No. 78 of 2016 dated 08.04.2016. It is next submitted that
while investigation in Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 76 of 2016 and
Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 78 of 2016 was pending when the
present Complaint Case No. 660 of 2016 came to be instituted by
the opposite party no. 2 herein alleging therein that the petitioners
came to his house, abused him and took away his golden chain as
detailed in the FIR based on which cognizance came to be taken
under Sections 323, 384, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by
an order dated 15.07.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Patna City. It is also submitted that after
cognizance was taken, the opposite party no. 2 was directed to file
the requisites Talbana but the same could not be filed as a result of
which the complaint petition came to be dismissed under Section
204 of the Cr.P.C. which was challenged before the learned
Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 457 of 2017 which was
allowed by an order dated 16.04.2018 which is impugned in the
present quashing application but subsequently by filing I.A. No. 02
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52515 of 2018 dt.16-01-2024
of 2023, the petitioners have challenged the entire criminal
proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 660 of 2016.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
children of the opposite party no. 2 was studying in the school of
the petitioners, namely, Little Flower High School, Patna City on
account of certain altercation the children of the opposite party no.
2 were reprimanded on which the opposite party no. 2 had entered
the school premises and had created ruckus which led to institution
of Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 76 of 2016 by the petitioner no. 1
herein. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 in order
to coerce the petitioners, who runs minority institution, into
submission instituted Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 78 of 2016 but
during the pendency of investigation in the aforesaid FIR, the
opposite party no. 2 instituted the instant Complaint Case No. 660
of 2016 with a view to further coerce the petitioners into
submission so that they do not pursue Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 76
of 2016. It is next submitted that it absolutely does not stand to
reason that the petitioner no. 1 who is the Principal of the School
and petitioner no. 2 who is his wife and petitioner no. 3 who is
daughter of the petitioners no. 1 and 2 would have gone to the
house of the opposite party no. 2 and would have abused, assaulted
and snatched gold chain as alleged in the complaint.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52515 of 2018 dt.16-01-2024
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this
perhaps explains why the learned Advocate is not appearing on
behalf of the opposite party no. 2 to contest the case.
10. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the
quashing application.
11. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the entire criminal prosecution arising
out of Complaint Case No. 660 of 2016 pending in the Court of
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City is hereby
quashed.
12. Accordingly, the instant quashing application is
allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 16.01.2024
Transmission Date 16.01.2024
