The exceptional nature of exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the difficulty in proving malicious prosecution at an interlocutory stage.

1. Heard Shri Raju Giri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 3.1.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in G.R. No. 523 of 2003/Tr. No. 1572 of 2006 arising out of Buxar (Industrial Area) P.S. Case No. 27 of 2003. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 448, 341, 379, 380, 465, 468, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Short fact of the case is that opposite party No. 2, Most. Sahnaz Bugum submitted a written report before the Officer- in-Charge, Industrial Area Police Station, Buxar disclosing therein that a plot in the Industrial Area, Buxar was leased out by the Industrial Area Development Authority to her husband. The plot in question was leased out to the husband of the informant for 99 years. Over the said plot, an industrial unit was established by her husband in the name and style of Liberty Dresses. It was disclosed that the husband died in the month of July,2000 and after the death of her husband, she was looking after the factory in question. It was alleged that at the time of occurrence ie. on 22.4.2003 in the evening at 6.00 P.M., this petitioner, who was at the relevant time, Branch Manager of the Bihar State Financial Corporation alongwith other two accused person, forcibly entered into the business premises. It was alleged that the accused persons assaulted the informant. They threw the articles of the factory in question. It was further alleged that the accused persons had assaulted not only the informant, but her two sons also. It was disclosed that the accused persons were in drunken condition and in the said occurrence, they had also looted some articles from the informant. On the basis of aforesaid written report, an F.I.R. vide Buxar (Industrial Area) P.S. Case No. 27 of 2003 was registered on 23.4.2003. After registering F.I.R., police thoroughly investigated the case and thereafter, chargesheet was submitted. After submission of charge-sheet, by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence as indicated above.

4. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 18.11.2008, this Court passed an interim order of stay of proceeding pending in the Court below.

5. By order dated 27.10.2009, case diary of Buxar (Industrial Area) P.S. Case No. 27 of 2003 was called for from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Buxar and same has been received, which is lying on record of this case.

6. Shri Raju Giri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance, in sum and substance, has argued that the present case has been initiated against the petitioner maliciously and on the ground of malicious prosecution itself, the entire proceeding including order of cognizance is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, has referred to number of documents, which have been annexed with the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to annexure-5 to the petition, submits that even in the year 2002 itself, the unit in question was already auction sold and it was settled with one Birendra Prasad Gupta, who has also been made accused in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to annexure-6 to the petition, which is a typed copy of take over hand over of the mortgage assets. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to annexure-6 to the petition, submits that the unit in question was already handed over to the highest bidder, namely, Birendra Prasad Gupta. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to annexure-7 to th