Allowed

Chandrika Singh and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC18 Aug 2017CR. MISC./33463/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the complaint case was a counter blast to a prior police case instituted by an accused against the complainant, making the summoning order illegal and an abuse of the court's process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned summoning order dated 24.03.2014 under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and the entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2214 of 2013 are hereby quashed.

Chandrika Singh and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.33463 of 2014

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2214 Year- 2013 Thana -SARAN COMPLAINT CASE District-

¶3

SARAN

¶4

====================================================== 1. Chandrika Singh Son of Late Yadunandan Singh R/o Village-Nawalpur, P.S.-Daudpur, District-Chapra.

¶5

Atiullah Ansari Son of Md. Ali Hasan R/o Village-Chakiya, P.S.Manjhi, District-Chapra.

¶6

Abhay Kumar Singh Son of Late Ram Ayodhya Singh R/o VillageChatat, P.S.-Barahara, Distict-Bhojpur at Ara, then Officer in Charge of Manjhi Police Station, District-Chapra.

¶7

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Bihar

¶10

Naim Ansari Son of Mobin Miyan R/o Village-Chakiya, P.S.-Manjhi, District-Chapra.

¶11

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Murari Mishra For the State : Mrs. Asha Kumari, A.P.P. For Opp. Party no.2 : None

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 18-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶14

A.P.P. for the State.

¶15

None appears on behalf of Complainant- Opposite

¶16

Party no.2.

¶17

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed to quash the order dated 24.03.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 2214 of 2013/Tr. No. 4032 of 2014 whereunder the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Saran at Chapra summoned the accused petitioners, on enquiry, under Section 204

¶18

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33463 of 2014 (3) dt.18-08-2017

¶19

2/5

¶20

Cr.P.C., finding prima facie case for the offences under Sections 166, 341, 342, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The fact leading to this application is that the complainant- opposite party no.2 filed Complaint Case No. 2214 of 2013 against the petitioners with contention that in the evening of 22.07.2013 he came at his house after doing the work of labour then Basant Manjhi, Choukidar of Manjhi Police Station came and told him that he was called by the Officer Incharge of Manjhi Police Station (Petitioner no.3). Thereafter he went to Police Station Manjhi along with Basant Manjhi where Officer Incharge of Manjhi Police Station (Petitioner no.3) assaulted him with fists and slaps and put him in the lock up and released him on furnishing bail bond by Haidar Ali. Earlier proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was going on in between him and the accused- Atiullah Ansari (Petitioner no.2) and his brother, accused Azijullah Ansari before the learned S.D.M.,Chapra, in which order was passed on 03.07.2007.The said order was challenged by him through Cr. Misc. No. 77 of 2008, which was disposed of on 19.03.2008 setting aside the order of learned S.D.J.M., Chapra. Accused- petitioner no.3, Officer Incharge of Manjhi Police Station in influence of accused petitioner no.2 Atiullah Ansari and his brother accused Azijullah Ansari called him at Police

¶22

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33463 of 2014 (3) dt.18-08-2017

¶23

3/5

¶24

Station and assaulted him and also registered Manjhi P.S.Case no. 115 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 269, 270 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against him and also released him on furnishing bail bond by Haider Ali s/o late Israil Mian as bailor. While he told accused petitioner no.2,Officer Incharge of Manjhi Police Station that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is in his favour inspite of that accused petitioner no.2-Atiullah Ansari and his brother accused Ajijullah damaged the drain. Regarding the occurrence his wife Sahjahan Khatoon sent typed copy of written report to the Superintendent of Police, Saran but by mistake the date was typed as 24.07.2013 in place of 23.07.2013 on the written report. At that time Officer Incharge of Police Station (accused petitioner no.3) also took Rs. 1200/- from his pocket forcibly.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that, in fact, Azijullah Ansari, brother of accused petitioner no.2 who is also an accused along with the petitioners had submitted the written report on 22.07.2013 at Police Station Manjhi and on the basis of said report Manjhi P.S.Case no. 115 of 2013 was instituted under Sections 269, 270 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the complainantopposite party no.2 and others on 22.07.2013. In the said case,

¶26

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33463 of 2014 (3) dt.18-08-2017

¶27

4/5

¶28

accused petitioner no.3, being Officer Incharge of Manjhi Police Station called the complainant- opposite party no.2 at police station and released him after executing bail bond by Haider Ali on the same day. But with ulterior motive the complainantopposite party no.2 filed present complaint case in which the petitioners and two others have been made accused.

¶29

On perusal of the record it appears that on he basis of written report of Ajijullah s/o Ali Hasan, brother ofpetitioenr no.2 Aziullah Ansari, Manjhi P.S.Case No. 115 of 2013 was instituted under Sections 279, 270 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the complainant- opposite party no.2 on 22.07.2013. Thereafter present Complaint Case No.2214 of 2013 is filed by the complainant –opposite party no.2 in the Court of learned C.J.M., Chapra on 24.07.2013 in which petitioners along with Basant Manjhi and Atiullah brother of petitioner no.2 have been made accused in which they have been summoned through the impugned order. As such Complaint Case No. 2214 of 2013 filed by the Complainant- opposite party no.2 appears to be counter blast of Manjhi P.S.Case no. 115 of 2013, the impugned order summoning the accused petitioners and other two accused named in the compliant Case no. 2214 of 2013, on enquiry, under Section 204 Cr.P.C. finding prima facie case under Sections 166,

¶30

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33463 of 2014 (3) dt.18-08-2017

¶31

5/5

¶32

341, 342, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code is illegal and abuse of process of court.

¶33

In the result, the order dated 24.03.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 2214 of 2013/Tr. No. 4032 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Saran summoning the petitioners and other two accused named in complaint petition, on enquiry, under Section 204 Cr.P.C. finding prima facie case under Sections 166, 341, 342, 323/34 IPC against the accusedpetitioners and entire criminal proceedings is hereby quashed.

¶34

The application stands allowed.

¶35

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

¶36

singh/-

¶37

U T

Chandrika Singh and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrika Singh and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rana Dhiraj Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Binay Singh @ Binay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Sheo Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Md. Afajal Hussain @ Afjal Hussain Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Jhagru Prasad @ Jhagru Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Chetlal Das Vs The State Of Bihar