IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that criminal proceedings should not be permitted to serve as a tool for harassment or retaliation in the context of civil disputes, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case to justify cognizance.

JUDGMENT :

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing of order taking cognizance dated 11.05.2015 of the learned C.J.M., Begusarai out of charge-sheet no. 21 of 2015 dated 25.01.2015 arising from C.B.R. (Manjhaul) P.S. Case No. 219 of 2014 dated 08.11.2014 registered for offences under Sections 341, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47635 of 2015 dt.13-03-2024 323, 504, 506, 379 and 34 of the I.P.C. (G.R. No. 4947 of 2014). The learned C.J.M., Begusarai took cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner no. 2 instituted a case bearing Title Suit No. 22 of 2013/930 of 2013 against Saroj Devi, mother of the informant (wife of Late Hareram Singh) for declaration of her title over the suit land. The details of the suit land were given in Schedule I of the plaint comprised of khata no. 24, khesra no. 6629, area 15 dhurs situated in Mauza-Manjhaul, Thana No. 191, Tauzi No. 1077, District-Begusarai with the given boundaries.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that both parties are agnates and for the said reasons, different civil litigations, qua ancestral properties arises out of partitions are pending between them. It is submitted that on one such occasion, an order was passed ex-parte in civil proceeding bearing Title Suit No. 22 of 2013 dated Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47635 of 2015 dt.13-03-2024 06.03.2014, from the Court Additional Judge-1st, Begusarai and out of said frustration present F.I.R. was lodged on 08.11.2014 for the alleged occurrence which claimed to be taken place on 07.11.2013.

5. It is submitted that from the narration of F.I.R., the date of occurrence appears as 07.11.2013, which was authored by injured informant himself. It is submitted that the petitioner no. 1 also filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 1966(C) of 2013 on 05.09.2013 arraying informant as an accused alongwith the family members before the learned Court below, where cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 379, 323 and 385 of the I.P.C. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the Circle Officer on the basis of aforesaid ex-parte judgment as passed in Title Suit No. 22 of 2013 created jamabandi in favour of petitioner no. 2 out of Mutation Case No. 23 of 2014-15. It is further submitted that the mother of informant, namely, Saroj Devi, who is widow of Late Hareram Singh, brother of petitioner no. 1, preferred appeal Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47635 of 2015 dt.13-03-2024 against aforesaid mutation order which has been registered as Mutation Appeal No. 1 of 2014-15 and same was also dismissed by the concerned Deputy Collector Land Reforms (D.C.L.R.). Summarizing the argument, it is submitted by learned counsels that out of civil dispute, present false case was lodged as a retaliatory attack just to pressurize the petitioners to compromise in civil cases and other pending criminal proceedings. It is further submitted that allegations of physical assault is appearing very much general and omnibus and moreover, date of occurrence as mentioned in narration of F.I.R. i.e., 07.11.2013 is not tallying with the date of occurrence as registered in formal F.I.R., suggesting prima facie false implication qua occurrence as no such occurrence took place.

6. In view of all aforesaid backgrounds as discussed, the present criminal proceedings against petitioners would only amount to misusing the process of law.

7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47635 of 2015 dt.13-03-2024 opposing the quashing petition submitted that informant is injured and as such, his version cannot be disbelieved on face qua occurrence, whereas learned A.P.P. fairly conceded that the date of occurrence was 07.11.2013 as per narration of F.I.R., whereas this case was registered on 08.11.2014.

8. Despite of servi