Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 597 (PAT)

Ashutosh Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2008-04-11

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2008
Judgment 1. This application by one of the F.I.R. named accused of Chandi P.S. Case No. 212 of 2006 is for the quashing of the First Information Report thereof and the consequent investigation. 2. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan given by one Sweety Kumari on 2.9.2006 inter alia alleging that at about 7 P.M. in the month of February, 2004 when she had gone to the eastern side of her house to answer the call of nature, co-villager, Ashutosh Kumar had come and ravished her and when she attempted to raise alarm Ashutosh implored her not to do so and assured to marry her whereafter she quietly returned to her house. It is also alleged that thereafter whenever she went to her school she was usually raped by Ashutosh Kumar. It is also alleged that both of them had taken photographs of themselves together on two occasions and on 1.1.2005 she was given a green card also. The further allegation is that Ashutosh Kumar, who was a student, used to reside at Patel Nagar, Patna, and during that period she had visited Patna and lived in Room No. 1 and there too there had been physical contact between them. It is also alleged that subsequently the matter came to the knowledge of both the families whereafter father of Ashutosh went to Patna to bring him and on that occasion Ashutosh gave out that he was in love with the informant and would marry her. It is said that Sweety Kumari and Ashutosh Kumar were brought to Chandi with an assurance of marriage wherefrom Ashutosh went to his native village and Sweety to her village home. 3. It is further alleged that in the night of 18/19.7.2005 Ashutosh Kumar scaled over the wall and entered into the house of the informant and committed rape with her. At that time the younger sister of the informant Khusboo Kumari, woke up and raised hulla on which her parents and one Birendra Prasad arrived and interrogated Ashutosh Kumar regarding the cause of his presence there to which he replied that he could not live without Sweety. Information was sent to Ashutoshs family members whereafter the informant and Ashutosh went to Hilsa Court where documents were made ready with respect to the marriage by one Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate. Information was sent to Ashutoshs family members whereafter the informant and Ashutosh went to Hilsa Court where documents were made ready with respect to the marriage by one Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate. However, Ashutosh was not ready to marry her on that day as it was a Tuesday and postponing it for two days went home and ever since he has become traceless. It is alleged that thereafter the informants father met the father of Ashutosh who refused to solemnize the marriage of his son with Sweety on the plea that it was an inter caste marriage and he also demanded Rs. 3,00,000.00 for the purpose of marriage. It is said that subsequently the informant came to know that a false case had been lodged against her father with respect to the kidnapping of Ashutosh Kumar. It has also been disclosed that earlier also the informant had filed a case of rape against the accused which was pending. It is also alleged that when Sweety Kumari went to the house of Ashutosh on 25.12.2005 she was assaulted by the accused persons and she became unconscious. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan given by Sweety Kumari, Chandi P.S. Case No. 212 of 2006 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 376 and 420/34 I.P.C. against the petitioner and other family members. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent, had committed no offence whatsoever and had been falsely implicated in this case with the intention to blackmail him and his entire family. It has further been submitted that with regard to the same offence/ incident of the same date and place of occurrence a complaint had been filed on 23.7.2005 against the same set of accused which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 436(C) of 2005 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa and was pending in the Court of Law at the revisional stage and there is mention of the same in the fardbeyan. It has also been submitted that the said complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. after inquiry vide order dated 8.12.2005 and the informant herein had preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif being Criminal Revision No. 8 of 2006 which was pending. It has also been submitted that the said complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. after inquiry vide order dated 8.12.2005 and the informant herein had preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif being Criminal Revision No. 8 of 2006 which was pending. It was sought to be pointed out that notwithstanding the aforesaid facts and filing of cases the informant on 24.1.2006 filed a petition with similar allegations in the Janta Darbar of the Chief Minister, Bihar who referred the same to Chandi P.S. and on the basis thereof Chandi P.S. Case No. 34 of 2006 under Section 498-A I.P.C. had been instituted and the same was pending. 6. On the aforesaid premise it was sought to be submitted that the petitioner was faced with double jeopardy inasmuch as three cases, namely, Chandi P.S. Case No. 34 of 2006, Chandi P.S. Case No. 212 of 2006 and Complaint Case No. 436(C) of 2005 were pending against the petitioner and his family members in respect of the same cause of action though at the various stages, and the same was not permissible in the eye of law as it was violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the citizens under Article 20 of the Constitution of India and as such the F.I.R. and investigation of Chandi P.S. Case No. 212 of 2006 was fit to be quashed. 7. It appears from paragraph-8 of the application that Chandi P.S. Case No. 34 of 2006 had been registered under Section 498-A i.P.C. whereas Chandi P.S. Case No. 212 of 2006 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 376 and 420/34 I.P.C. and the Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge was for further inquiry under Section 398 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the subject matter of all the three cases and the issues involved therein are not the same though the cause of action, the informant/complainant and set of accused are the same. 8. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that this is not the stage where the F.I.R. and investigation of Chandi P.S. Case No. 212 cf 2006 should be quashed. Even otherwise Courts exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be loath in quashing the First Information Reports and investigation based thereupon. 8. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that this is not the stage where the F.I.R. and investigation of Chandi P.S. Case No. 212 cf 2006 should be quashed. Even otherwise Courts exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be loath in quashing the First Information Reports and investigation based thereupon. That apart if the matter in issue in all the three cases happen to be the same, the same will come to light in course of investigation and in that event the petitioner may take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum. 9. As for the present, I am not inclined to interfere with the investigation of Chandi P.S. Case No. 212 Of 2006 and accordingly dismiss this application.