Patna High Court
Hareram Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 1 March, 2024
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11890 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2014 Thana- KHARIK District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Hareram Singh Son of Arjun Singh, Resident of Village- Telghi, P.S.- Kharik,
District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Subhash Gorhi S/o Bablu Gorhi
3. Manoj Yadav S/o Late Swarup Yadav
4. Md. Mobarak S/o Marhum Atikurraham All are resident of Village-
Jamaldipur, P.S.- Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Ms.Saroj Shandilya, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 6 : Mr.Rajan Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-03-2024
Earlier vide order dated 25.01.2024, the name of
opposite party nos. 4 & 5 has been deleted from the array of the
opposite parties. Hence, the petition only survives with regard to
opposite party nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State duly assisted by learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 6, who is now O.P. No. 4.
3. The present application has been filed for quashing
of order dated 07.12.2015 passed in Kharik P.S. Case No. 78 of
2014, G.R. No. 625/14 by learned S.D.J.M., Naugachia whereby
learned Magistrate has accepted the final report, dismissed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11890 of 2016 dt.01-03-2024
protest -cum- Complaint Petition and taken cognizance under
Section 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the
"I.P.C.") against the petitioner.
4. The petitioner was informant of Kharik P.S. Case
No. 78/2014 registered under Section 147, 148, 149/34, 323,
379, 384, 365/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
5. The brief facts of the case is that on 03.06.2014
while the petitioner/informant along with others were talking in
his orchard, all the accused persons/opposite parties came there
and started firing on him. The accused persons assaulted him
and demanded ransom of Rs. 10,00,000/- and also taken away
golden locket, mobile phone etc. of the petitioner/informant.
Thereafter, police reached there and brought him to the hospital.
6. After completion of investigation police submitted
final form stating case as a false case against accused
persons/opposite parties mainly on the ground that alleged
looted mobile during investigation found in possesson of
petitioner/informant himself and submitted charge-sheet under
Section 182 and 211 of the I.P.C. against petitioner/informant.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner/informant submitted that police, while submitting
charge-sheet, stated that the case was lodged falsely by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11890 of 2016 dt.01-03-2024
informant/petitioner and, as such, submitted charge-sheet stating
thereof that case found false during investigation along with
recommendation to initiate proceeding under Section 182 and
211 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner/informant. It is pointed
out that protest petition of complaint was totally ignored and
informant was not heard on protest petition. It is further
submitted that informant received injuries during the occurrence
and he was hospitalized in government hospital by police and
during hospitalization itself his fardbeyan was recorded,
thereafter he was referred to Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical
College & Hospital, Bhagalpur. It is further pointed out that
several witnesses though not identified respondent-opposite
party nos. 2 to 6 during the occurrence supported the occurrence
of kidnapping and also the allegation of firing by stating that
they heard the sound of firing but all such facts were completely
ignored by investigating officer and also by learned Magistrate
while taking cognizance and by composite impugned order, the
final form exonerating respondent-O.P. No. 2 to 6 was accepted
and by same order cognizance was taken under Section 182 and
211 of the I.P.C. against petitioner/informant.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that after the
occurrence a panchayati was convened where the mobile, as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11890 of 2016 dt.01-03-2024
alleged to be looted, was returned to the petitioner/informant
and only after that he put a different SIM for use of said mobile
handset, which was alleged to be looted, and only on the basis
of certain conversation made through same handset, the entire
material evidences collected during course of investigation was
ignored by the police. At this stage, learned counsel submitted
that now good relation has prevailed between the parties and as
such petitioner/informant is not intended to challenge order of
acceptance of final form and rejection of protest petition by
learned trial court, qua accused persons/opposite parties.
9. It appears from the order dated 25.01.2024 that O.P.
No. 4 and 5 died during pendency of the present quashing
petition and, as such, their names were deleted, whereas notice
served upon respondent no. 2 and 3 but they failed to join the
present proceeding, whereas respondent no. 6 is duly
represented.
10. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of O.P. No. 6, who is now O.P. No. 4, that protest was
filed after submission of charge-sheet, thereafter petitioner was
given an opportunity to file show cause which was filed by the
petitioner and after considering all such facts, cognizance was
taken under section 182 and 211 of the I.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11890 of 2016 dt.01-03-2024
11. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4,
endorsed the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner/informant that parties are the residents of nearby
locality and good relation has now prevailed between them. It is
submitted that disputes arises out of monetary transaction in
sale-purchase of "Litchi", where accused persons were
purchaser. It is submitted that dispute appears civil in nature.
12. It is submitted that continuing with this proceeding
would now only amount to abuse the process of law and to
disturb the good relationship which has now been restored
between them, where calyx of occurrence was founded over
dispute, which appears prima-facie civil in nature.
13. It would be apposite to reproduce paragraph '102'
of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors [(1992)
Supp (1) SCC 335] which is being reproduced hereunder for a
ready reference:
''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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11890 of 2016 dt.01-03-2024
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.''
14. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal
submission and by taking note of fact as dispute prima-facie
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11890 of 2016 dt.01-03-2024
civil in nature where admittedly good relation restored as
discussed above, the impugned order to the extent where
cognizance was taken against the petitioner/informant qua
Section 182 and 211 of the I.P.C. is hereby quashed and set-
aside.
15. This application stands allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
16. It is made clear that this order shall be of no
bearing regarding acceptance of final form qua respondent nos.
2 to 6 (now respondent no. 4) and also qua rejection of protest
petition. Moreover, petitioner as per submission now not
intended to challenge these aspects before higher/appellate
forum.
17. Let a copy of this order be sent to learned trial
court immediately.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 05.03.2024
Transmission Date 05.03.2024
