Rakesh Kumar, J.@mdashFour petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 5.3.2001 passed by Shri V.B. Yadav, Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 511 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 511 of 1999. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that petitioners intruded into the house of the complainant and they opened fire. They were armed with Kirpaan and Katta. They dragged the complainant outside the house. However, on alarm raised by the complainant, other family members arrived and any how the complainant could be saved. The reason for the occurrence was asserted in the complaint petition that some land was given to the complainant by the petitioners on lease agreement and thereafter, some dispute had cropped up in between the complainant and petitioners. After filing the complaint petition, the complainant was examined and witnesses were also examined during the enquiry, who supported the case of complainant. However, the learned Magistrate, by its order dated 26.5.1999, by a detailed order, rejected the complaint petition u/s 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against rejection of the complaint petition, the complainant preferred a revision, which was numbered as Cr. Revision No. 53 of 1999 and the learned Sessions Judge, by its order dated 1.2.2000, allowed the revision petition and remitted back the matter to the learned Magistrate to examine the matter on the basis of materials available on record and pass necessary order in accordance with law. After remand of the case to the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, by its order dated 5.3.2001, took cognizance of offence under Sections 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 5.3.2001 passed by Shri V.B. Yadav, Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 511 of 1999. the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition.
4. Shri Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel. appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while pressing the present petition, has argued that the present complaint petition was filed maliciously. It was submitted that prior to filing of the present complaint petition, on the basis of a written report, submitted by petitioner No. 1 against opposite party No. 2, an F.I.R. vide Katihar P.S. Case No. 49 of 1999 was registered on 13.4.1999. At the time of argument, it was submitted by Shri Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the written report was submitted before the police much earlier. However, the F.I.R. was registered subsequently after conducting enquiry on 13.4.1991. It was argued that since the petitioner No. 1 had filed a criminal case against the informant due to the reason that the informant in whose favour the land in question was leased out, had cropped tobacco over the land in question and thereafter, the occurrence had taken place for which an F.I.R. under Sections 295A and 418 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and in the said case, police after investigation, had submitted charge sheet on 19.8.1999. It was further submitted that while rejecting the complaint petition, by order dated 26.5.1999, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class had examined the materials on record and thereafter, he had rightly ordered for the rejection of complaint petition. It was submitted that the second order of cognizance was passed mechanically without application of mind. Accordingly, on the ground of malicious prosecution as well as on the ground of no material on record for proceeding against the petitioners, it has been prayed to quash the order dated 5.3.2001 passed by Shri V.B. Yadav, Judicial Magistrate, Katihar.
5. Shri Sharma has also submitted that during pendency of this petition, the petitioner No. 1 has died. However, no affidavit to this extent has been filed. Accordingly, on this very question, there is no requirement to pass any order.
6. Shri Binod Shankar Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners were powerful persons of the locality and due to their influence, an F.I.R. was registered subsequently against the complainant in which police has submitted charge sheet against the petitioners. It was submitted that the second F.I.R., which was lodged by petitioner No. 1 was itself malicious. So far as present case is concerned, it was submitted that the materials on record was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the petitioners and while passing the order of cognizance, the learned Magistrate has committed no error.
7. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has adopted the argument advanced on behalf of opposite party No. 2.
8. Besides hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record and the contents of the petition. I am of the view that while passing the order of cognizance, the learned Magistrate has examined the materials on record and the learned Magistrate has committed no error. Moreover, the court is satisfied that petitioners have not made out an exceptional case warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction in their favour and, accordingly, it is not a fit case for interfering with the impugned order.
9. The petition stands rejected.
10. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 19.12.2001 stands automatically vacated.
11. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court below forthwith.
