Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 860 (PAT)

Vinod Kumar Srivastava v. Jitendra Kumar Singh

1998-12-10

P.K.SARKAR

body1998
Judgment P.K.Sarkar, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance along with the entire proceeding against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 270C/90. Tr. No. 523/91 pending in the Court of Sri Ramanuj Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna. 2. The brief facts leading to this application is that O.P. Jitendra Kumar Singh filed a complaint petition on 14.6.90 alleging therein that on 16.3.90 in between 9 a.m. to 11.45 a.m. while he was sitting in his house talking with his mother about the marriage of his younger brother, all of a sudden, all accused persons entered into his house and the petitioner caught hold of the complainant and dragged him up to Ashok Rajpath and forcibly put him in a Police Jeep which was waiting there from before. He was then taken to Pir-bahore Police Station and subsequently produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17.5.90 on some false pretext of recovery of firearm. It was alleged that he was forced to put his signature on the Seizure List. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and some witnesses were examined on his behalf. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, Sri Ramanuj Singh, Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner on 29.9.92 under Sections 323 and 504 IPC and issued summons. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present application has been filed. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegations in the complaint are false. The petitioner was posted as Inspector of Police at Pirbahore Police Station and was deputed in the task force for arrest of criminals. Besides the petitioner, other persons were members of the said task force. The petitioner received a secret information that the complainant - OP No. 2 used to bring illegal arms and ammunition and sell it to the criminals. The petitioner with a view to apprehend him organised a raiding party consisting of ASI, Amalendra Mishra, Constable Devendra Jha, etc. The Station Diary entry No. 791 dated 16.5.90 was made by the petitioner. The SI of Police and others were handed over one hundred rupee-note and eighteen notes of fifty rupees denomination, the number of which were noted by the members of the raiding party. The Station Diary entry No. 791 dated 16.5.90 was made by the petitioner. The SI of Police and others were handed over one hundred rupee-note and eighteen notes of fifty rupees denomination, the number of which were noted by the members of the raiding party. At about 9 a.m. ASI Amalendra Mishra and constable Devendra Jha gave signal to the petitioner from the house of Jitendra Kumar Singh and the petitioner along with other police official with armed forces went to the house of Jitendra Kumar Singh who wanted to flee away. But he was surrounded by the petitioner and other splice officials and on search he was found in possession of the said currency notes. On interrogation O.P. No. 2 confessed his guilt that he was indulging in illegal sale of arms and ammunition. Thus, the petitioner arrested O.P. No. 2 Jitendra Kumar Singh and a case was instituted bearing Pirbahore PS Case No. 146/90 for the offences under Section 20 (1) (B), 29 (B), 28/30 of the Arms Act and O.P. No. 2 Jitendra Kumar Singh was remanded to Jail custody. Subsequently, on 14.6.90 in order to save his skin O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint petition before Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner and the case was transferred to the Court of Sri Ramanuj Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, who issued summons to the accused-petitioner and others. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he acted in the due discharge of his official duties. As the petitioner received secret information that the O.P. No 2 used to bring illegal arms and ammunitions and sell it to the criminals, a raiding party was organised and illegal arms and ammunition were recovered from his possession, as alleged. O.P. No. 2, thus, was arrested and remanded to custody. The complainant has not made any specific allegation on which any criminal liability can be made out against the petitioner and others. The entire complaint case was cooked up in order to build a defence for the case filed against the O.P. by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the allegation and the ingredients of Sections 323 and 504, IPC are lacking. The petitioner acted in good faith to prevent the O.P. from committing the criminal activities. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the allegation and the ingredients of Sections 323 and 504, IPC are lacking. The petitioner acted in good faith to prevent the O.P. from committing the criminal activities. The case filed against him was duly taken cognizance and being proceeded with in the Court. As per the own statement of O.P. No. 2, it will appears that he was released on bail on 4.6.90 and the complaint was filed on 14.6.90. This undue delay in filing the complaint makes the whole allegations doubtful. There is nothing to show that the complainant O.P. No. 2 made complaint of any maltreatment by the petitioner while he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at the time of remand. It is submitted that the petitioner did the entire thing in discharge of his official duty. No. sanction has been obtained by the O.P. 2 form the concerned authority for prosecutions of the petitioner, who was on Government duty at the time of alleged occurrence. 6. The O.P. No.2 has not appeared in this proceeding, though, notices were served on him. Thus, there is nothing on the record on the basis of which the submissions of the petitioner can be disbelieved. It appears that the petitioner was posted as Inspector of Police in Pirbahore Police Station at the time of the occurrence and in such capacity of official duty he arrested the O.P. No. 2 and others and seized certain articles and, thus, the elements of the offences for which cognizance had been taken are lacking in the case. 7. In the result, this application is allowed and the order of cognizance along with the entire proceeding against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 270C/90, Tr. No. 523/91 is hereby quashed.