Patna HC dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of a cognizance order for offences under IPC Sections 323, 379 and 34. The court held that although pending litigation existed, the allegations disclosed an offence and prosecution could not be stifled at the initial stage.
Application for quashing of the cognizance order dismissed.
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.7691 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -22 Year- 2014 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS)
======================================================
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Sada Nand Ray For the Opposite Party : Mr. Gajendra Pd.Yadav(App)
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER
2 05-12-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Counsel for the State.
The petitioners seek quashing of the cognizance order dated 22.10.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, lst Class, Dehri, Rohtas in Complaint Case No. 22 of 2014, thereby taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The allegation in the complaint is that the accused persons are maternal uncle and aunt of the complaint. While the complainant was going to board the train to go to Patna to purchase some articles for the shop, on the way the accused persons intercepted, abused and assaulted him with fists and legs and also took out money kept in his
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7691 of 2015 (2) dt.05-12-2017
2
pocket. It is alleged that since 2011 father of the accused was living along with the complainant therefore they nourished enmity against the complainant.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact the complainant has got land of petitioner’s father executed in his favour and for that he has filed a title suit therefore this false allegation has been levelled moreover the petitioners have also filed a complaint case against the present complainant.
However, there appears some litigation going on between the two sides. So in this circumstances, it is only to be seen whether the allegations levelled in the complaint do disclose some offence or not. The allegations levelled in the complaint do disclose offence of assault, as enmity cuts both ways so it may be the cause of false implication or becomes a reason for committing the offence. So the prosecution cannot be stifled at this stage considering these grounds.
So, the application stands dismissed.
(Arun Kumar, J.)
Snkumar/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the criminal complaint disclose an offence warranting prosecution despite pending civil litigation between the parties.
Dinesh Lal
Suman Devi
The State of Bihar
Sonu Kumar
Arun Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
