Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 483 (PAT)

Tarkeshwar Yadav v. State of Bihar

2014-04-22

RAKESH KUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT : RAKESH KUMAR, J.:–Heard Sri Umesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.S. Chaudhary, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the complainant/Opp.Party no.2. 2. Three petitioners, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 07.12.2004 passed by Shri R.C. Malviya, learned Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in Complaint Case No.74C of 2002, Tr. No.1603/2007. By the said order, after conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate was prima facie satisfied that offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and directed for issuance of process for securing attendance of accused persons. 3. Short fact of the case is that the complainant, who is victim of the case, had filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah on 08.01.2002 disclosing therein that for obtaining ransom amount of Rs.1.5 Lakhs, he was forcibly kidnapped by accused persons. In the complaint petition, there is specific statement showing that the complainant was kidnapped by all the three petitioners besides other accused persons. It has also been disclosed that only after payment of Rs. 1 Lakh, which has been paid by brother of the complainant, the complainant was released. Subsequently complaint petition was filed. After filing the complaint petition, enquiry was conducted and the learned Magistrate being satisfied with the case has passed order of cognizance. 4. Sri Umesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to lodging of the present complaint case, as per instance of father of the complainant, an F.I.R. vide Yogapatti P.S. Case No.159 of 2001 was registered on 16.10.2001 for the offence under Sections 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. However, after lodging F.I.R., during investigation ,involvement of some of the accused persons surfaced and, as such, police submitted chargesheet vide Chargesheet No.85/2002 dated 11.06.2002 against three accused persons, who are not petitioners before this Court. He submits that for the same occurrence, two cases may not proceed. On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for setting aside the order of cognizance. 5. He submits that for the same occurrence, two cases may not proceed. On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for setting aside the order of cognizance. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/Opp.Party no.2 submits that content of the complaint petition categorically discloses that the complainant was kidnapped for ransom by all the three petitioners and other accused persons. He submits that complaint petition further corroborates that the complainant was released only after payment of ransom amount of Rs. 1 Lakh. He further submits that during the period when the occurrence in the present case had taken place, it was writ large that kidnapping for ransom had emerged as industry in the State of Bihar. Moreover, he submits that in the S.A. as well as during enquiry the fact showing involvement of the petitioners had surfaced and, as such, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed order of cognizance. He further submits that it is not a case that the petitioners were also accused in Yogapatti P.S. Case No.159 of 2001 and , as such, only on the ground of pendency of a case against other accused persons, petitioners may not be exonerated from the present complaint proceeding. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Perusal of averment made in the F.I.R. i.e. Yogapatti P.S. Case No.159 of 2001( Annexure-2 to the present petition), corroborates the allegation of the complainant in the present case (Complaint Case No.74C of 2002). After the complainant was kidnapped and since accused persons were not known, the father of the complainant had approached the Police Station for lodging F.I.R. and thereafter an F.I.R. was lodged against unknown for offence under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code. After being released, the victim himself has filed the present complaint and gave vivid picture of entire occurrence, in which the role of petitioners has categorically been elaborated. Besides showing involvement of petitioners, the complainant had also shown in its complaint regarding involvement of other accused persons, against whom the police in Yogapatti P.S. Case No.159 of 2001 has already filed chargesheet. Even in that case, the police had found involvement of some of the accused persons, who were arrayed as accused in the present complaint petition, though they are not petitioners in the present petition. 7. Even in that case, the police had found involvement of some of the accused persons, who were arrayed as accused in the present complaint petition, though they are not petitioners in the present petition. 7. On going through the impugned order, the Court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate has committed no error in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 8. In this case, the order of cognizance was passed on 07.12.2004 and the petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2008. By order dated 27.03.2009, further proceeding was directed to be stayed by a Bench of this Court. In view of dismissal of the present petition, interim order of stay stands vacated. 9. Keeping in view the fact that occurrence in the case had taken place long back in the year 2001, while dismissing this petition, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously, so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay. ?