Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 183 (PAT)

Naresh Prasad Bhagat v. State Of Bihar

2006-02-21

REKHA KUMARI

body2006
Judgment 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order dated 18.8.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 79/2004 giving rise to Trial No. 2044 of 2004 by which he has taken cognizance under Sections 342, 323, 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and ordered to issue summons against them for trial. 2. Heard. 3. It appears that on the basis of the fardbeyan given by opposite party No. 2 Suman Kumar, Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 79/2004 was registered against the petitioners. The allegation made in the fardbeyan is that the informant is a salesman in a shop near Kazi Mohammadpur. On 4.6.2004 the petitioners came to him on a Tata Sumo and petitioner No. 1 Naresh Prasad Bhagat, who is related to him as uncle and resides at Jakkanpur, Patna enquired about his brother Pintu. He replied that he might be at jakkanpur, Patna with his widow mother whereupon petitioner No. 1 informed that he was not there. Petitioner No. 1 informed that he. was not there. Petitioner No. 1 further informed him that Pintu had fled away with the money of Sehara India. The informant told his uncle that his brother might be at Ram Dayalu Gandak Colony in the house of Lalan Kumar. The petitioners asked him to show his residence. Then all of them went to the house of Lalan Kumar. The occupants of Tata Sumo then surrounded the house. One of them enquired from the mother and sister of Lale Kumar whether Pintu had come. They replied that he had come with his wife and daughter. The lady (wife) then came out with the child. The petitioners took them on the vehicle and proceeded. In the meantime, the shop owner of the informant had reached there on motor cycle. They saw Pintu Kumar near the gate of Gandak Colony and the petitioners assaulted him and after tying his hands forcibly took him on Tata Sumo. The informant and his shop owner asked the petitioners to take Pintu to the police station but they did not listen to him and they sped away towards Patna. 4. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 342, 323 and 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The informant and his shop owner asked the petitioners to take Pintu to the police station but they did not listen to him and they sped away towards Patna. 4. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 342, 323 and 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on perusing the chargesheet found a prima facie case against the petitioners and passed the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent. He further submitted that, in fact, the lady who was in the house of Lale Kumar is the wife of petitioner No. 2 Sanjeev Kumar resident of Jakkanpur, Patna. Pintu Kumar was on visiting terms with petitioner No. 2 and he had developed illicit relationship with the wife of petitioner No. 2. On 3.6.2004 she along with her child was coming to Patna with petitioner No. 2 from Bariarpur by Bhagalpur Patna Intercity Express train when Pintu Kumar with the help of his friend Guddu Kumar enticed her and her child at Barh railway station and they brought them to Muzzafarpur and when the petitioners went to Muzzafarpur in search of Pinki (wife of petitioner No. 2) on account of the fardbeyan lodged by the brother of Pintu. the vehicle was intercepted and the petitioners were arrested. He further submitted that after arrest of the petitioners Pinki Kumari gave her fardbeyan at Kazi Mohammad pur police station which was forwarded to Barh G.R.P.S. and oh the basis of the allegations made therein. acase under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code has been instituted against Pintu Kumar and Guddu. 6. The contention of the learned counsel, hence, is that Pinki Kumari was abducted by Pintu and Guddu and the petitioners after recovering Pinki and her child while returning had picked up Pintu Kumar also and the petitioners had no intention to abduct Pintu and it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to proceed with the instant case. 7. It is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance and issunig processes, the Magistrate is required only to see whether from the FIR and the materials collected during investigation there is prima facie case for proceeding against the accused persons for the offences alleged. In this case the allegations in the fardbeyan an disclosed the above offence. 7. It is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance and issunig processes, the Magistrate is required only to see whether from the FIR and the materials collected during investigation there is prima facie case for proceeding against the accused persons for the offences alleged. In this case the allegations in the fardbeyan an disclosed the above offence. Hence, when after investigation (he police has submitted charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate was justified in passing the impugned order. 8. The defence of the petitioners that they are innocent and, in fact, Pintu had abducted Pinki Kumar and her child and the allegation made by Pinki in her fardbeyan is true cannot be considered at this stage. They can be considered only during trial. Therefore, on the basis of the above defence the impugned order cannot be quashed. 9. In the result. I do not find any merit in this application. This application is, accordingly. dismissed.