Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 279 (PAT)

Suresh Singh v. State Of Bihar

2006-03-30

REKHA KUMARI

body2006
Judgment 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 30.7.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. III, Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 639 of 2003 by which he has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to discharge them under Section 227 of the Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. It appears that one Sheo Nandan Prasad of village Doia, P.S. Noorsarai, District Nalanda filed a petition of complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif against the petitioners. The complaint was sent to the police station for institution of the case and for investigation. Accordingly, Bihar (Soh) P.S. Case No. 37/2001 under Sections 364 and 364-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. 4. The allegations in the complaint petition, in nut shell, are that Ashok Kumar, son of the complainant (informant) was running a book shop at Fusro in the district of Bokaro and in course of business he became acquainted with petitioner Nos. 1 and 3. Petitioner No. 1 had money lending business and Ashok Kumar often used to take loan from him and in this way they had become very close to each other. A few days before the occurrence, Ashok Kumar had come to his village house. He had asked the complainant to arrange for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and accordingly the complainant had arranged a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. On the date of occurrence i.e. 20.1.2001 petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 came to the house of the complainant. Ashok Kumar gave petitioner No. 1 the above amount. They told that a car was being repaired at Sonsarai and requested Ashok Kumar to accompany them upto Sonsarai. On their request, the complainant and his son Ashok Kumar and some other persons went with the petitioners. They saw the car at Asha Nagar More, petitioner No. 2 was sitting in the car. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 brought the car and also requested Ashok Kumar to sit in the car and accompany them upto Rajgir. Ashok Kumar was not willing to go with them but on their insistence, he went with them. Ashok Kumar, however, did not return home thereafter. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 brought the car and also requested Ashok Kumar to sit in the car and accompany them upto Rajgir. Ashok Kumar was not willing to go with them but on their insistence, he went with them. Ashok Kumar, however, did not return home thereafter. On 23.1.2001 Amit Kumar and Sanjeet Kumar came and informed the complainant that the petitioners had kept Ashok Kumar confined and threatened that if Rs. 1,50.000/- was not paid in cash, he would be killed. 5. It further appears that after investigation the police submitted final report as case false. However, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session. 6. Thereafter a petition was filed by the petitioners to discharge them under the provisions of Section 227 of the Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge heard both sides and perused the case diary. He found from the case diary that the complainant, his wife, the victim and one Mahendra Prasad had supported the prosecution case and the victim has stated that instead of taking him to Rajgir, the petitioners forcibly took him to the house of petitioner No. 1 Suresh Singh at Bokaro and kept him confined there and threatened that unless Rs. 1,50,000/- due as interest was paid, he would be killed. 7. In view of the above statements of the witnesses in the case diary, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that there is sufficient material for proceeding against the petitioners for the offences under Section 364 and 364-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, by the impugned order he rejected the prayer of the petitioners to discharge them. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution case is false. No independent witness has supported the case and the case has been lodged with a motive not to return the money taken by Ashok Kumar. 9. It is well settled that at the time of framing of charge, the Sessions Judge or the trial Court has only to consider the materials produced by the prosecution. It cannot consider the defence of the accused. The High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is not empowered to quash the charges by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. 10. It cannot consider the defence of the accused. The High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is not empowered to quash the charges by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. 10. Therefore, when the trial Court after considering the materials in the case diary has found a prima facie case against the petitioners under Sections 364 and 364-A/34, IPC, it is not open to this Court to quash the same. Accordingly, this application for quashing is dismissed.