Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 925 (PAT)

Surendra Choudhary v. State Of Bihar

2002-08-26

R.S.GARG

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. Counter-affidavit has been taken on record. 3. In relation to F.I.R. No. 9/2000 of Choutarwa P.S., District West Champaran, the present petitioner has come to this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings. The petitioner says that neither the first informant, the son of the kidnapped person said anything against the present petitioner either in his First Information Report and subsequent thereto, nor the kidnapped person namely, Dhrub Singh did speak even a single word against the interest of the petitioner, therefore, the registration of an offence against the present petitioner, his arrest, continuance of the proceedings etc. be held to be absolutely illegal. In support of the petition the petitioner had filed the copy of the First Information Report lodged by Nawal Kishore Singh, son of Dhrub Singh, the supervision note and the statement of Dhrub Singh son of Singhal Singh recorded under S. 164, Cr. P.C. In the counter-reply the respondents have relied upon the statement of said Dhrub Singh recorded under S. 164, Cr. P.C. According to the respondent, a perusal of the said statement would clearly show the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence. I have heard the parties at length and have perused the records. 4. The First Information Report has been lodged by Nawal Kishore Singh, son of the person who was kidnapped. In the First Information Report he has stated that on 19-8-2000 when he was sitting outside the house about 7-8 armed persons came to his house and two out of them caught hold of his father and proceeded towards the eastern side, while proceeding further these persons fired the gun, therefore, out of shock and fear no alarms could be raised. In the First Information Report said Nawal Kishore Singh did not name anybody but, however, stated that he could identify certain persons. Subsequent to this further investigation was made but said Nawal Kishore Singh nor anybody else made any allegations against the present applicant. The kidnapped man, namely, Dhrub Singh, son of Singha Singh was released by the kidnappers after receiving a ransom of Rs. 40,000.00. He was examined by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bagaha (West Champaran) on 24-10-2000. In his statement he had stated that out of 10-12 miscreants he could identify two persons as Dedhi and Gorakh because they were of the same village. 40,000.00. He was examined by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bagaha (West Champaran) on 24-10-2000. In his statement he had stated that out of 10-12 miscreants he could identify two persons as Dedhi and Gorakh because they were of the same village. He further stated that four persons, Ram Kishan Choudhary, Ashok Choudhary, Brajesh Chouhan and Shesh Nath Chouhan of village Mehandi came to the spot and thereafter he was again handed over to the accused persons. He was thereafter taken from one place to another, he was kept in a blind-fold and one Lal Babu Chouhan and some other man came and started discussing about money. In the last paragraph of his statement he had said that Surendra and Brajesh Patel came running to the spot and asked the miscreants that why the old man was kept in custody and he be immediately released. From his further statements, it appears that the accused persons did not leave him and took him under the deep forest, thereafter his brother Dinesh and son Nawal and some other came, paid the ransom and got him released. 5. The statement dated 24-10-2000 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class is also the sheet anchor for the prosecution to say that the present applicant was one of the miscreants. 6. Undoubtedly, the first informant and any other witness did not implicate the present applicant nor did say that he had done any overt act or he was actively involved in the commission of the offence. The only statement in relation to the present applicant is contained in the statements of Dhrub Singh recorded under Sec. 164, Cr.P.C. on 24-10-2000. 7. The said statements read as :- "SURENDRA EVAM BRAJESH PATEL DAURKAR WAHAN AAYE SABHI BAD-MASHO SE KAHEN KI BUDHA KO KYON PAKARKAR LE AYA HO ISE CHHOR DO. LEKIN BADMASH LOG NAHIN CHHORE, AUR UNKO GHASIT KAR JUNGLE LE GAYE. WAHAN PAR MERA BHAI DINESH TATHA MERA LADKA NAWAL AAYE AUR PATHAR CHOUHAN BADMASH SE MILE USE RUPAYE CHALIS HAZAR (40,000.00 ) DIYA TAB MUJHE BADMASH CHHODE." 8. From this statement, giving longest latitude to the prosecution agency, it would not appear that the present applicant was involved in the commission of the crime. On the other hand it would appear that the present applicant tried to intervene in the matter to see that Dhrub Singh was set at large or set free. 9. From this statement, giving longest latitude to the prosecution agency, it would not appear that the present applicant was involved in the commission of the crime. On the other hand it would appear that the present applicant tried to intervene in the matter to see that Dhrub Singh was set at large or set free. 9. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit it is contended by the deponent that the involvement of the present petitioner and others is proved beyond any doubt in view of the statements of the victim, independent witnesses and host of circumstantial evidences. The statements made by the said officer in the counter appear to have been made to satisfy his own self and not to satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court. Barring above-referred one statement, the case-diary does not contain anything against present applicant. The statements of other witnesses and the alleged (sic) host of circumstantial evidence have not been shown or brought to the notice of this Court. It appears that neither the Investigating Officer, nor the Station House Officer, nor the person who has supervised the investigation nor the person who had approved or filed the charge-sheet cared to read the nature of the allegation made against the present applicant. 10. True it is that in a case of present nature the Court is not required to meticulously examine every statement and circumstances made/appearing against the interest of the applicant-accused but it is equally true that the case-diary must contain some legal evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime. If the connecting link is missing and the chain to tie the accused with the alleged crime is not complete then in such a case the prosecution would be bad. In the present case not only the link is missing but even there is no chain. After going through the statement of Dhrub Singh recorded under Sec. 164, Cr.P.C. nobody can say that he was making any allegation against the present applicant, it would rather appear that he was stating that the present applicant came to help and assist him. Should this be a reward to a person who appears on the scene and tries to intervene in the matter and save the sufferer. Should this be a reward to a person who appears on the scene and tries to intervene in the matter and save the sufferer. If in such a case the police wants to prosecute a man and the Court allows such a prosecution then that would shock the confidence of the public not only in the police system but even in the judicial system. 11. In absence of any material against the present applicant neither he could be arrested, nor he could be charge-sheeted. The prosecution of the applicant is bad, it deserves to and is accordingly quashed. 12. Because of the illegal acts of the respondents the applicant was arrested and has to undergo the trauma of the prosecution and was required to come to this Court to seek judicial protection. In the opinion of this Court for an arrest without any cause and illegal prosecution the applicant must get some compensation/damages from the respondents. The State Government is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 to the petitioner as a token for his illegal detention and false prosecution. The petitioner shall, however, be free to take the matter before the Civil Court for seeking any further compensation, if so advised. The State Government shall also be free to make an enquiry into the subject and after fixing the liability on the concerned officer/officers may recover the amount from them. 13. The petition is allowed. Petition allowed.