RAKESH KUMAR, J.
(1.) The petitioners, who are officers/employees of the Land Development Bank, have approached this court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of the order dated 23.2.1998 passed by Shri Pandey Gajendra Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barh in Case No.231(C) of 1996. By the said order the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under sections 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) As per the complaint petition, it was alleged that on 1.8.1996 at about 10 A.M. while the complainant was going to the Civil Court in the A
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
dvocates uniform and reached near the Land Development Bank, he was intercepted by all the petitioners. It was alleged that the complainant was abused by the accused persons and thereafter he was assaulted and during the said occurrence, it was alleged that accused no.1 i.e. petitioner no.1 snatched HMT watch of the complainant which was for an amount of Rs.600/-. It was alleged that on the order being given by accused no.1, accused no.4 took out Rs.375/- from the pocket of the complainant. After filing of the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and three witnesses were examined in support of the complaint case. After examining the complainant, statement of complainant on solemn affirmation and evidence of the witnesses, learned Judicial Magistrate, Barh by impugned order took cognizance of the offences as mentioned above.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Poonam Kumari Singh, while challenging the order of cognizance as well as proceeding on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant, submits that the compliant petition was filed maliciously. She further submits that the content of the complaint petition itself shows that the allegations are not believable. She submits that petitioner no.1 was Branch Manager of the Land Development Bank and he was a responsible person. It cannot be expected that a Brach Manager will indulge in such an occurrence and he will snatch watch from the complainant. She submits that perusal of the contents of the complaint petition makes it clear that the complaint petition was filed in a designed manner. She further submits that the present complaint petition was filed only with a view to put pressure on the bank officials so that the bank may not further proceed with the certificate case which was filed against the complainant and his brothers. While referring to paragraph-5 of the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier in 1976 a loan of Rs.5,500/- was given to the father of the complainant from the Land Development Bank, Barh Branch, for purchase of 5 HP Diesel Pump Set. As per the agreement, the loan amount was required to be liquidated within a period of seven years. However, father of the complainant did not re-pay the loan amount and thereafter a certificate case was filed by the bank. Subsequently, it was found that father of the complainant died. Thereafter, a fresh certificate proceeding was filed with a view to recover the loan amount with interest from the legal heirs of the loanee. After noticing the fact regarding pendency of the certificate proceeding the complainant went to the office of petitioner no.1 and he gave undertaking that he will discuss the matter with his other brothers and he will liquidate the loan amount. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to annexure-3 to the petition, which is at page33 of the brief. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the undertaking by the complainant was given on 24.7.1996 and only on the next date the complainant filed a complaint petition in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate vide Complaint Case No.231(C) of 1996 on 25.7.1996. In the said complaint it was alleged that the petition forcibly took his signature on blank papers and it was also alleged that the complainant was assaulted. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 1.8.1996, while the petitioner no.1 had gone to get the warrant of arrest issued in certificate case received in the police station and while he was returning on Rickshaw he was intercepted by the complainant and his brother and few other unknown persons. He was assaulted and he was illegally confined in the Bathan of the complainant and thereafter petitioner no.1 filed a case vide Barh P.S. Case No.280 of 1996 for the offences under sections 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further submits that in the said case after investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the complainant. She further submits that though occurrence in Barh P.S. Case No.280 of 1996 had taken place on 1.8.1996, the complainant who is an Advocate practicing at Barh Civil Court on the next day i.e. 2.8.1996 filed the present complaint petition and in this complaint petition order of cognizance was passed which is under challenge before this court.
(4.) Learned counsel, Mr.Chandrsen Prasad Singh, appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that this is not the stage to look into these materials. He submits that the case is at the very initial stage and, as such, it is not advisable to restrain the court below to further proceed in the case.
(5.) Learned counsel, Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, appearing on behalf of the State supports the stand of opposite party no.2.
(6.) I have also gone through the materials available on the record including the complaint petition and the impugned order. Prima facie, I am of the view that the allegation made in the complaint petition is not believable. Besides this, the complaint petition appears to be filed maliciously. It is not in dispute that a certificate proceeding was initiated by the bank for recovery of the amount of loan, which was taken by the father of the complainant. I am of the view that by allowing the proceeding in the complaint petition filed by the complainant will certainly amount to abuse of process of the court and, as such, it is desirable to intervene even at the initial stage of the present case. Accordingly, I am of the view that the order of cognizance as well as proceeding in Complaint Petition No.231(C) of 1996 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
(7.) Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 23.2.1998 as well as the entire proceeding in respect of the petitioners is hereby set aside and this petition is allowed