Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 840 (JHR)

Bipad Taran v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-08-20

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2004
ORDER Hari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. This quashing application is directed against the order dated 29.7.2002 passed in Case No. C-252 of 2002 whereby and where under the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 496/323/306/511/34 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the O.P. complainant Shyam Kishore Prasad filed a case being complaint case No. C-252 of 2002 against the petitioners under Sections 496/323/306/511/34, IPC alleging therein that in between the night of 10-11th April 2002 at about 12 Oclock son of the complainant Sandip Kumar @ Bobby had left his parents house and had been debarred from his paternal property and the complainant had no concern with Sandip Kumar @ Bobby and this fact has come to the knowledge of the accused persons, it is further alleged that Nandana Ray (@) Naina wanted to marry the son of the complainant, but due to the bad character of the said Nanada Ray @ Naina, Sandip Kumar @ Bobby was not ready to marry her. It was further alleged that the said Nandana Ray @ Naina convinced her family members that she had married Sandip Kumar @ Bobby, then all the accused persons unitedly entered into a conspiracy and sent a pleaders notice to the complainant alleging therein that Naina had married Sandip Kumar @ Bobby in the month of August 2001 and they have to accept her as wife of Sandip Kumar @ Bobby. Thereafter Sandip Kumar @ Bobby replied to the notice and denied allegation of alleged marriage with Nandana Ray. It is further alleged that on 3.3.2002 accused persons with the help of local police and some anti social elements tried to solemnize the marriage of Sandip Kumar @ Bobby with Nandana Ray (@) Naina forcibly and complainant and his family members were taken to Lalpur police station. At the Lalpur police station, policemen extended threat and torture and gave ill treatment to the complainant and his family members and policemen forcibly took signature of the complainant and also took signature of his brother-in-law on a blank paper and threatened them to accept Nandana Ray @ Naina as wife of Sandip Kumar @ Bobby, otherwise all of them will be implicated in a false case. It is further alleged that the complainant and his family members got frightened and the accused persons took away Sandip Kumar @ Bobby forcibly with them and complainant had no knowledge about him for two days. Thereafter accused persons started visiting the house of the complainant regularly in his presence or even in his absence and used to threaten him and his family members. On two occasions, Nandana Ray and Swati Singh (petitioner No. 5) came to the residence of the complainant and threatened that they have come to live in the house and will implicate him in rape, dowry or other serious cases. On 18.3.2001 at about 8.00 a.m., the accused persons armed with pistol came to the house of the complainant in search of the son of the complainant and threatened to kill his son the same day. It is further alleged that the accused persons have disturbed the whole family to such an extent that they must kill themselves and they have even abetted them in commission of suicide. On 10.4.2004 at about 8.00 a.m. the accused persons tortured the son of the complainant and abetted him in commission of suicide. It is further alleged that at about 12 O clock of 14.4.2002 the son of the complainant took poison and tried to end his life. Thereafter he was taken to Nagarmal Modi Seva Sadan by his friends and was admitted there and he was saved by the doctors after great effort. Later, the doctor recovered a suicide note from the pocket of the complainants son in which he directly and voluntarily stated that he was ending his life due to the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-accused persons submits that the petitioner-accused persons are innocent and the complainant has made contradictory statement inasmuch as that on the one hand he has stated that his son had left the house and on the other hand. he says that he has been debarred from his property and he has no concern with his son and the so-called occurrence took place in the house of the complainant O.P. and Sandip Kumar who is son of the complainant, is the main victim. It is further submitted that there is general and omnibus type of allegation against the accused persons. It is further submitted that there is general and omnibus type of allegation against the accused persons. It is further submitted that in the whole complaint petition, S.A. and evidence of witnesses, there is no allegation that any injury has been caused and there is only allegation of threatening to keep the accused No. 2-Nandana Ray as wife of son of the complainant O.P. No. 2. There is no such statement in the S.A. that the complainant has approached the police for lodging of the FIR. On the other hand, it has been submitted that Nandana Ray is the legally married wife of the son of the complainant and she has already lodged an FIR on 10.5.2002 before the lodging of the present complaint case under Sections 313/493/498(A)/120(B) IPC against the five accused persons including the complainant and the present complaint case has been filed with false allegation by way of revenge. It is further submitted that in course of inquiry under Section 202, Cr PC not a single prosecution witness has supported the case and, therefore, the impugned order taking cognizance is bad in law. 4. On the other hand. OP No. 2 complainant of complaint case No. C-252 of 2002, appeared and filed counter-affidavit. From perusal of his counter- affidavit, it appears that allegation made by the complainant in the aforesaid complaint case is true and the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly cognizance after examining the complainant and five other witnesses of the case including the doctor who had saved the life of the complainants son. It further appears from perusal of the counter-affidavit that accused persons-petitioners has committed serious offence. It further appears from counter-affidavit that the so-called marriage of Nandana Ray with Sandip Kumar was performed under the pressure of Lalpur police personnel who had taken signature of the complainant and his brother-in-law on a blank paper and had even threatened to implicate the entire family in a false case. In this connection son of complainant O.P. No. 2 has filed a Matrimonial Title Suit No. 44 of 2002 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi for declaring the marriage as null and void which is still pending. It further appears that O.P. No. 2 complainant has filed the complaint case on 19.4.2002 and the allegation that Nandana Ray had lodged an FIR prior to this complaint case is wrong. It further appears that O.P. No. 2 complainant has filed the complaint case on 19.4.2002 and the allegation that Nandana Ray had lodged an FIR prior to this complaint case is wrong. It further appears that case and counter-case have lodged by both the sides and case are pending in the Court below. 5. Vide Order dated 24.3.2004, an order was passed to the effect that the opposite parties may file rejoinder to the supplementary affidavit and at the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to annex copy of deposition of witnesses, but the same have not been annexed through supplementary affidavit. It appears that in the counter-affidavit: O.P. No. 2 has alleged that even doctor who is said to have saved the life of the son of the complainant has been examined along with four other witnesses and from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons, although it has been tried to show that as a result of filing of the FIR by the accused person namely Nandana Ray, this complaint case has been filed by way of retaliation, but from the statements made in counter-affidavit it appears that the complaint case was filed prior to the filing of the FIR by Nandana Ray. 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Court below. In the result, this application is dismissed.