Application to quash an order taking cognizance in a criminal trial for theft and voluntarily causing hurt was allowed. The High Court held allegations were inherently improbable and the case was filed with ulterior motives to wreck vengeance, applying Bhajan Lal.
Impugned order taking cognizance was set aside and the application was allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.7389 of 2012
====================================================== 1. Puja Devi, wife of Manoj Singh @ Karu Singh, D/o Sri Satya Narain Singh @ Lutkun Singh. 2. Satya Narayan Singh @ Lutkun Singh, son of Late Upendra Singh. 3. Kiran Devi, W/o Sri Satya Narayan Singh @ Kutkun Singh. 4. Pam pum Singh, S/o Satya Narayan Singh @ Lutkun Singh. 5. Mohan Singh, S/o Satya Narayan Singh @ Lutkun Singh. All are residents of Village- Hawanpura, P.S. Rahui, Bhandari, DistrictNalanda. .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Manoj Singh @ Karu Singh, S/o Pawan Singh. Resident of Village- Piariya, P.S. Gaurichak, P.O. Alawalpur, DistrictPatna. .... .... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER
4 07.05.2013 This is an application for quashing the order dated 24. 11. 2011, passed by Sri Jitesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna City, in Complaint case No. 451 of 2011, by which it has been ordered to issue summons after taking cognizance for offence under Sections 323 and 379 of Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint petition by the complainant Manoj Singh @ Karu Singh that accused petitioner no. 1, Puja Devi, his wife, accused petitioner no.-2, is his father-in-law, accused petitioner no. 3 is his mother-in-law and accused petitioner no. 4 and 5 are his brother-in-law. The
complainant is husband of petitioner no. 1 and has lodged this case against wife and in-laws alleging that he had kept 3 lakh rupees in his box which he had earned by cutting earth over two bighas of land. He had given the key of the box to his wife, the accused. It is further alleged that father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-inlaw of the complainant had come at the house of sister of his father-in-law in the village itself. The accused persons came on a maruti car and reside at the house of the complainant. The complainant gave them warm reception and their food in the house and stay in the night. In the morning the complainant went to visit his filed and when returned he found that all the accused persons including his wife went away along with Rs.3,00,000/-, cloth and jewelleries from the box of his mother worth Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is further alleged that all the accused persons assaulted by fists and slap to the mother of the complainant. It is further alleged that when the complainant went to the police station then police advised him that it is a family matter so it is better for him to file a complaint. The complainant filed a complaint and on the complaint all the accused persons including the witnesses were examined on solemn affirmation and after considering the statement of the complainant and witnesses impugned order was passed taking cognizance.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order on the ground that allegation made in the complaint is quite absurd and improbable and the case has been filed to wreck
vengeance against the accused persons to spat on the face. It is contended that prior to institution of this case, a complaint case had been filed by the petitioner no.1, Puja Devi, wife of Manoj Singh, opposite party no. 2 against Manoj Singh, opposite party no. 2 and his family members for offence under Sections 498 A and 323 of Indian Penal Code as well as for offence under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in which there is allegation of demand and subjecting cruelty with regard to occurrence dated 04. 05. 2011 and this case has been filed to harass with ulterior motive to wreck vengeance.
Learned counsel for the State however contends that in both the cases allegation has been made against one another parties against each other. The fact of case can only be ascertained at the stage of trial. The allegation made in the complaint in both cases, the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The allegation made can only be treated at trial. Hence there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Taking into consideration the respective submission, it is apparent that earlier to this case the wife, petitioner no. 1 has filed a case against the Manoj Singh, the complainant-husband, opposite party no. 2 and his family members for offence under Section 498A. The said case bearing Complaint Case No. 483 (C) of 2011 against her husband, mother-in-law in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 323 and 498 A of Indian Penal
Code. This case has been filed in retaliation.
However, allegation made in the complaint petition that father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law came to the house of opposite party no. 2 and remained in the house of the complainant, opposite party no. 2 in the night. They accepted their hospitality and after taking food in the night slept in the house and then in the morning took away Rs. 3,00,000/- which was kept in the box for construction of the house. The allegation on the face value itself appears to be absurd and improper. Further it is alleged that in the morning they assaulted the mother of the complainant and took away the money kept in the box of the wife of the complainant and jewelleries from the box of the mother of the complainant. Moreover, it is apparent that the accused in this case are wife and her parents and brother whereas prior to institution of this case, the wife has herself filed case for offence under Section 498A and 323 I.P.C. against her husband and mother-in-law.
However the allegations made are inherently improbable and manifestly absurd that father-in-law will commit theft in house of his daughter and son-in-law and the wife will decamp with husband money with her father. The question is not whether allegations are true or false, but from the fact itself, it can well be assumed that allegations made are manifestly absurd and inherently improbable. Further in fact and circumstance that wife
has herself filed a case for offence under Section 498A against her husband prior to institution of this case indicates that the case was instituted to wreck vengeance to spit on the face as the wife has herself filed the case prior to filing of this case.
Hence under the facts and circumstances of the case, allegation made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improper and it is apparent that complaint case has been filed with motive to wreck vengeance against the petitioners and hence squarely covered under Bhajan Lal case reported in A.I.R. 1992 page 604.
Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and application is allowed.
m.p.
(Gopal Prasad, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the complaint were manifestly absurd and inherently improbable given the prior case filed by the accused.
Whether the complaint was filed with ulterior motive to wreck vengeance against the petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhajan LalApplied¶15
A.I.R. 1992 page 604Applied¶15
Puja Devi
Satya Narayan Singh @ Lutkun Singh
Kiran Devi
Pam pum Singh
Mohan Singh
The State of Bihar
Gopal Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
