Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1149 (PAT)

Dharmendra Singh Raghav v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-30

GHANSHYAM PRASAD

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have filed this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 5.2.2002 passed by Sri B.N. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No. 479(C)/1999 thereby and thereunder the learned Magistrate has summoned the petitioners under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial. 3. Opposite party no. 2, a practising Advocate of Begusarai, filed the aforesaid complaint case before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai against six named accused persons and five unknown persons including five petitioners of this case who are residents of New Delhi with an absurd and unbelievable allegations. It has been alleged that on 10.5.1999 in the evening all the accused person including these petitioners came in the chamber of Opposite Party No. 2, forbade him from working as an Advocate on behalf of Manoj Kumar Yadav and Rameshwar Yadav and on refusal they all assaulted him and took away his box containing rupees five thousand cash. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the case to the court of Mr. B.N. Pandey for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure who took cognizance under Sections 323 and 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code only against the non-petitioner, Jangjeet Singh Raghav and discharged the rest five accused persons who are also petitioners in this case. In course of trial the Opposite Party No. 2 examined three witnesses before charge and thereafter on 22.11.2000 filed a petition under Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the petitioners also. The learned lower court accordingly passed the impugned order summoning the petitioner to face trial. 5. It is not in doubt that Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers wide powers upon the trial Court to summon the additional accused to face the trial but in the present case the facts and circumstances are so glaring on face of the record to infer that the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the Opposite Party No. 2 and his witnesses in an absurd and improbable story with sole motive to harass, humiliate and wreaking vengeance. Therefore summoning the petitioners under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be nothing but the abuse of process of Court. 6. The daughter of accused no. Therefore summoning the petitioners under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be nothing but the abuse of process of Court. 6. The daughter of accused no. 1 Jangjeet Singh Raghav, namely, Kushum Kumari, a minor girl, was kidnapped by Manoj Kumar Yadav and others for which Cheriya Bariyarpur P.S. Case No. 33/1999 was lodged on the basis of Fardbeyan lodged by father of the girl, Jangjeet Singh Raghav. In course of investigation the statement of the victim girl was recorded under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she clearly alleged that she was confined in the house of Opposite Party no. 2 for fifteen days. Fearing his prosecution the Opposite Party No. 2 lodged this complaint case against Jangjeet Singh Raghav as also against five petitioners of this application, who are relations of Jangjeet Singh Raghav just for wreaking vengeance and make out a defence against his alleged complicity in a heinous crime of kidnapping. 7. It is to be mentioned here that the petitioners are not the residents of Bihar. They are of New Delhi. There was no occasion for them to come over to Begusarai along with family members just to commit crime of simple assault etc to Opposite Party no. 2. All these allegations appear to be the product of the complainants legal brain for obvious reason as stated above. 8. Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not meant to harass innocent persons nor to settle personal score or for wreaking vengeance as said above. Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits the trial court to summon any person not being accused to face trial but only when it appears from the evidence that such person or persons have committed offence. The most significant term which occurs in this provisions is "evidence opposed to term "materials" which means legal, admissible and credible evidence which tends to establish the truth of the facts. It does not include such statement which on very face of it appears to be improbable, absurd and contains grains of falsehood. The Magistrate exercising power under Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must bear in mind that summoning an accused is a serious matter and criminal case should not be set in motion against anyone in mechanical and casual manner. The Magistrate exercising power under Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must bear in mind that summoning an accused is a serious matter and criminal case should not be set in motion against anyone in mechanical and casual manner. In this particular case the learned Magistrate on similar set of evidence once refused to summon the petitioners at the stage of inquiry but later on issued summons to them without having any further evidence for all practical purposes. 9. Thus, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that summoning the petitioners under Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, this application is allowed and order in question is hereby quashed.