Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1044 (PAT)

Nitya Nand Tiwary v. State Of Bihar

2007-06-01

GHANSHYAM PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This application under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 28.1.2006 passed by Shri A.K.Pathak, Fast Track Court No. 4, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 197 of 2005 thereby a petition under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. On perusal of the record, it appears that this is a case under Section 364/34 of the I.P.C. as well as under Sec. 120B of the I.P.C. The case has been filed for kidnapping of one Rajmani Devi. The opposite party no. 2/informant is a Bahnoi of the victim Rajmani Devi. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the entire prosecution case is false and baseless and it has been filed with ulterior and bad motive. No such occurrence ever took place. In course of the investigation, the statement of the victim was recorded under Sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C. In that very statement, she has completely denied the allegation of kidnapping. She has stated that she with her own accord had gone to her Bhagina Nitya Nand for treatment. Thereafter, she remained there for ten months and when she became fully recovered return to the house. She has further stated that this opposite party Rameshwar Tiwary has falsely and in confusion has filed this case. It is further submitted that a petition was also filed by the victim on 12.2.2004 before the Court of C.J.M., Aurangabad denying about the allegation of kidnapping and she has clearly stated that false case has been filed against the petitioners and accordingly, prayed that the petition may be kept on the record and the copy may be sent to police for necessary information. 5. On the other hand, the opposite party no. 2 objected the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the charge has already been framed and the trial is going on. 6. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the impugned order as also the statement of the victim recorded under Sec. 164, Cr.RC. which is Annexure-5 and also the petition filed by her before the Court of C.J.M. dated 12.2.2004, which is Annexure-3. It is quite clear that the entire case is false and baseless. No kidnapping of Rajmani Devi was ever held. 7. Perused the impugned order as also the statement of the victim recorded under Sec. 164, Cr.RC. which is Annexure-5 and also the petition filed by her before the Court of C.J.M. dated 12.2.2004, which is Annexure-3. It is quite clear that the entire case is false and baseless. No kidnapping of Rajmani Devi was ever held. 7. Under the circumstances the prosecution of the petitioners for kidnapping of Rajmani Devi is out and out misuse of process of the court. 8. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Sessions Trial No. 197 of 2005 is hereby quashed.