A cognizance order may be quashed if allegations do not prima facie establish an offence, particularly when the main accused is exonerated, indicating potential ulterior motives in the complaint.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Anshul, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.

2. This application pressed for quashing of order dated 16.02.2022, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua in G.R. No. 27 of 2020, arising out of Mohania P.S. Case No. 07 of 2020, by which learned Magistrate rejected the petition filed u/s 190 of Cr.PC pressed on behalf of the petitioners, challenging taking cognizance u/s 307 of IPC.

3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.01.2020 in morning at 7 AM while informant was coming to his house on motorcycle and so when he reached at the house of one Ramdayal Singh, his motorcycle was surrounded by the accused persons and was told that he could not use the road in-front of their house. When it was opposed by the informant, the accused persons were started to abuse and thereafter assault was made using lathi by accused Ram Awadhesh Singh and Ram Dayal Singh and other accused persons assaulted with fist and slaps. The accused persons snatched the cash of Rs.700/- from him. Thereafter the informant's uncle went to their house for complaining about the occurrence but he was also abused and chased by showing gun, video of which was captured by event videographed by mobile. It is further stated that previously, the accused persons stolen hi-electric motor pump but due to interference of local villagers, no case was lodged against accused persons. They also threatened to kill informant by dashing from vehicle.

4. Mr. Anshul, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of cognizance against petitioners appears bad in the eyes of law as same was passed without considering available materials. In support of his submission it is pointed out that the petitioner appears to be implicated only for the reasons that they are son of Ram Awadhesh Singh against whom the allegations of assault is available during the occurrence but interestingly after investigations police exonerated him making entire occurrence doubtful on its face. It is submitted that the maximum allegation appears against petitioner, out of perusal of FIR is abusing to the informant out of neighborhood dispute and differences arising out of use of pathway. It is submitted by Mr. Anshul, that facing trauma of criminal prosecutions that to for a heinous offence like 307 IPC, with such an absurd allegation not appears justified and in support of his submission he relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 and Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 947 and Jage Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 11 SCC 366 .

5. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, could not disputed the submissions as advanced by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, it is submitted that the materials available on records would not appreciate in its probative terms at this stage.

6. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant Paragraph No. 26 of Salib @ Shalu @ Salim case (supra) which reads as:-

“26. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he wo