The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of malicious prosecution, which allows the court to quash an order of cognizance if the complaint is found to be filed maliciously.

Heard Sri Bankey Bihari Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyaya, learned A.P.P. as well as Sri Krishnadeo Raj, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of the complainant/opposite party no. 2.

2. The sole petitioner, has approached this court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) with a prayer to quash an order dated 2.2.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in Complaint Case No. 1059 of 2010 whereby he has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 323, 385, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for summoning the accused persons which includes the petitioner.

3. Short fact of the case is that the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint while he was in judicial custody. The said complaint was sent through Assistant Jailor, Divisional Jail, Nawada to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1059 of 2010. In the complaint petition the opposite party no. 2 had alleged that he was running a school in the name of Gandhi Bal Vikas Madhya Vidyalaya, Warisaliganj since 1968. On the date of alleged occurrence i.e. 21/8/2010 since it was Saturday after closure of the school at 10.30 A.M. he was at his residence and in the meanwhile, at about 3.00 P.M. the Block Education Extension Officer namely Sri Birendra Singh with present petitioner and other three unknown persons arrived at his residence and demanded illegal gratification on the plea that the complainant was earning a lot by running school. Since the demand was not fulfilled the complainant was forcibly taken by the Block Education Extension Officer as well as this petitioner to the school premises and forcibly school was unlocked, number of documents were taken away forcibly and complainant was booked as accused in a false criminal case. It was alleged that in the said occurrence the petitioner had forcibly snatched his golden chain. After the complaint petition was received the complainant was examined on S.A. and at the time of his examination on S.A. he was produced from jail. In support of the complaint two witnesses who were non else but son and wife were got examined as enquiry witnesses and thereafter by the impugned order the petitioner along with Birendra Kumar Singh, the Block Education Extension Officer/inspector of school were summoned. The said order has been assailed in the present petition.

4. Sri Bankey Bihari Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset by way of referring to the statement of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 which was recorded on S.A. submits that the complainant himself had stated that he had initiated the present case against the petitioner since earlier petitioner had filed a case against him. Taking clue from the statement of the complainant, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case was falsely instituted against the petitioner which can be categorized as malicious prosecution. He submits that if the court is satisfied that it is a malicious prosecution then in view of law laid doe down by the Apex Court in a case reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors) the order of cognizance can be interfered with by this court. He further submits that the complainant by way of running a school was issuing forged certificate which was being objected by the petitioner repeatedly. The petitioner had filed number of complaint before the authority concerned. Even in the Janta Darbar of Hon’ble the Chief Minister complaint was filed by the petitioner, thereafter the District Magistrate had issued direction to the concerned authority to enquire and lodge F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to persuade the court to examine Annexure – 4 to the petition i.e. a copy of letter dated 2580 dated 22nd August 2008 issued by the District Magistrate to District Superintend