Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1811 (PAT)

Ranjan Prasad @ Rajan Lal v. State Of Bihar

2007-11-23

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2007
Judgment Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. This application at the instance of the five petitioners, all of whom have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No. 420(C) of 2006, and against whom cognizance has been taken under Ss. 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code by Sri S.B. Niraj, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, by his order dated 5.1.2007 is for quashing of the said order. 2. The prosecution case is based on the complaint petition filed on 16.2.2006 by O.P. No. 2 herein, Pinki Devi, who, inter alia, alleged that on 6.2.2006 at about 9 P.M. all the accused persons came to her house and on the orders of accused no. 1. Rajan Prasad, the other accused persons caught hold of her and accused Raju and Nitya Nand over powered her and accused Bablu and Rakesh divested her of her clothes up to the waist by tearing her blouse and taking away her sari. However, even with the gagged mouth the complainant managed to raise nulla which attracted the neighbours who rushed to the place and seeing this the accused persons ran away and while departing they snatched her golden chain. It is said that the witnesses who had arrived saw the accused persons going away and when her husband arrived at 10 P.M. she narrated the incident to him. On the following day at 9 P.M. the complainant accompanied by her husband went to the Kadamkuan Police Station to lodge a case which was not instituted. Accordingly the complaint. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been implicated falsely in this case since petitioner no. 1 had filed CWJC No. 635 of 2004 before this Court which by order dated 19.9.2005 had directed for removal of encroachment made while constructing Sudha Milk Booth in front of the house of the petitioners as well as for the removal of encroachment made by Gopaljee Tea Stall and as the order had not been carried out the said petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 23 of 2006 before this Court and this Court by order dated 30.11.2006 had directed the physical appearance of the Collector and eventually by order dated 12.12.2006 disposed of the contempt petition. It has also been submitted that since pursuant to the order passed in the writ application Gopaljee Tea Stall was removed by the police officials and as the contempt petition had been filed Gopal Prasad the owner of Gopaljee Tea Stall bore a grudge and committed an occurrence on 3.1.2006 for which Complaint Case No. 333(C) of 2006 was filed in the Court of C.J.M. Patna, on 4.1.2006 which was prior in time of the filing of the instant complaint petition and wherein cognizance was also taken. 4. The learned counsel further sought to submit that petitioner no. 1, Rajan Lal, had filed an Informatory Petition No. 373(M) of 2006 in the Court of C.J.M., Patna against Gopal Prasad and his sons Munna Kumar and Sunil Kumar and the said Munna Kumar is one of the witnesses in the present complaint case and apparently Munna Kumar had good reasons to support the complainant in the instant complaint petition as the stall of his father had been uprooted pursuant to the order of the High Court passed in the writ petition. The learned counsel also sought to raise a grievance against the protracted delay in filing the complaint. In this connection it was sought to be submitted that whereas the alleged occurrence took place at about 9 P.M. on 6.2.2006 and the husband of the complainant was informed on his arrival one hour later at 10 P.M. yet the complainant and her husband waited for 24 long hours and went to the Police Station only at 9 P.M. on the following day (7.2.2006) and for this delay no explanation has been furnished. It was also submitted that if at all, as pleaded in the complaint petition, the police refused to register the case on 7.2.2006 no probable reasons has been assigned for not filing the complaint petition till 16.2.2006. This by itself, according to the learned counsel, was sufficient ground to indicate the falsity of the case. The learned counsel also sought to criticize the evidence adduced by the complainant at the inquiry u/s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This by itself, according to the learned counsel, was sufficient ground to indicate the falsity of the case. The learned counsel also sought to criticize the evidence adduced by the complainant at the inquiry u/s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this connection he sought to point out that in her statement on S.A. recorded almost about 7 months after the occurrence the complainant had not stated as to how she had been assaulted and who and in what manner her sari had been snatched and as such she had not supported her case as made out in the complaint petition. He also criticized the statement of Munna Kumar, the husband of the complainant, who only stated that when he returned at 10 P.M. he found his wife weeping and on being asked she disclosed to him that the accused persons had entered into the house assaulted and abused her and tore her blouse and while fleeing away snatched her chain. P.W.2 Sadhu Kumar stated that the occurrence took place between 9.30 and 10 P.M. while he was in his shop and a quarrel had ensued between Bablu, Rajan and Dabloo on one hand and Pinki Devi in the street and when he went to the place of occurrence a large number of ladies had assembled whereupon he came back. He does not state anything about the assault, abuse or snatching of her clothes. In other words what the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to submit was that none of the witnesses were eye witnesses to the occurrence and they had not supported the complainants case. None of the ladies who had assembled at the P.O. were sought to be examined by the complainant. 5. From the documents annexed to the application as Annexures 3, 4 and 5 series it is apparent that petitioner no. 1 had moved this Court for removal of encroachment of public road by the husband of the complainant as also by Tea Stall Vendor Gopal Prasad and that a contempt petition had also been filed. It is also apparent that prior to the filing of the instant complaint petition petitioner no.1 had filed an informatory petition against Gopal Prasad his sons and had also filed a complaint case against them which was earlier in time. It is also apparent that prior to the filing of the instant complaint petition petitioner no.1 had filed an informatory petition against Gopal Prasad his sons and had also filed a complaint case against them which was earlier in time. Apparently these facts had neither been disclosed in the complaint petition nor before the Magistrate who took cognizance by the impugned order. 6. However, from the evidence that has been adduced at the inquiry and the statement of the complainant on S.A. a prima facie case does not appear to have been made out against the petitioners. The complainant has merely stated that she was abused, assaulted and her sari was snatched. She does not state anything about the snatching of the chain and whereas P.W.1 is a hearsay witness, the two others did not appear to be eye witnesses to the occurrence and P.W.3 merely stated that a quarrel had ensued in the street but does not say anything about abuse, assault and snatching of clothes. 7. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case the statement advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners of there having been implicated in a false case does not appear to be unfounded. Prosecution of the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. 8. Accordingly the application is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance is hereby quashed.