Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 826 (PAT)

Radhika Devi v. State of Bihar

2014-08-01

ASHUTOSH KUMAR

body2014
ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Ajay Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N.N. Tiwary, learned counsel for the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The petitioners, who are the wife and the husband, have challenged the order dated 13th of December, 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 171 (c) of 2000 whereby the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected. 3. The opposite party no.2- the complainant filed a complaint alleging that on several occasions, he lent money to the petitioners, the total amount being around Rs. 22,000/- and odd. However, not a penny was returned to the complainant even though there was a promise to return the loan amount as soon as possible. It was further alleged by the opposite party no. 2 that on one occasion, when he demanded his money back, he was mal-treated and was also divested of Rs. 317 which he was carrying in his pocket. His life could be saved only on the timely arrival of the neighbours. On the basis of the aforementioned complaint petition, an enquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was conducted whereupon cognizance has been taken. Thereafter, witnesses were examined under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in support of the prosecution version. The petitioners preferred an application for discharge before the Court below which has been refused by the impugned order. The aforementioned order refusing to discharge, is under challenge. 4. This Court notices the fact that the first prayer for discharge was rejected by the Court below on 30th of July, 2002. Against such an order, petitioners preferred an application before this Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 26421 of 2002. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 1st of December, 2005 set aside the order passed by the Court below and remitted the case back to the Court of learned Magistrate for writing out a fresh order in accordance with law as no cogent grounds were given by the Court below for refusing the prayer of discharge. It appears that thereafter, again vide order dated 15th of September, 2006, the prayer for discharge was rejected; which order, again, was challenged before this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 47761 of 2006. It appears that thereafter, again vide order dated 15th of September, 2006, the prayer for discharge was rejected; which order, again, was challenged before this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 47761 of 2006. On the second occasion, this Court vide order dated 30th of August, 2007 again set aside the order of the Court below and remitted it back to the concerned Court for applying his mind afresh. Thereafter, again the effort of the petitioners for relief came as a failure. The last of such orders was passed on 13th of December, 2007. 5. In the present application, the order dated 13th of December, 2007 has been impugned. After perusal of the order impugned as also the records of this case, it appears that the complaint petition is completely and conspicuously silent about the circumstances, under which the accused persons were given loan of Rs. 22,000/- and odd by the complainant. The complaint petition also does not indicate as to what amount of money was paid and in how many installments and for what purpose. It is true that such specification are not required to be given in the complaint petition but in view of the fact that no effort has been made by the complainant to show the status/relation of the petitioners vis-à-vis the complainant, it becomes imperative to look for such details. From the perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the petitioners are either neighbours of the complainant or perhaps petitioner no. 2 is working at the same place where the complainant-opposite party no. 2 is working. In absence of these specific details in the complaint petition, this Court is inclined to think that the complaint was lodged only for ulterior purposes and not for getting the petitioners punished for the act of not returning the loan amount. Even at the stage of Section 244 of the Cr. P.C. when witnesses were examined, the complainant has made a categorical statement that he was not known to the petitioners but was only known to the father of the petitioner no. 2. He also stated before this Court that all the documents in support of his contention of his having given loan to the petitioners were filed in the Court on the day, he was examined. 2. He also stated before this Court that all the documents in support of his contention of his having given loan to the petitioners were filed in the Court on the day, he was examined. The complainant was also not sure about the genuineness of the documents and further stated that he is illiterate and does not know the intricacies of the ways of the world. From such statement made by the complainant, it becomes further clear that the motive for launching the prosecution is different than what it, on face it is. 6. The object behind of such prosecution therefore, does not remain illusory. This Court has no difficulty in holding that the complaint referred-to-above is a sham and it brings about only a lame prosecution which would never be able to stand the scrutiny of trial. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that assuming but not admitting the allegations in the complaint to be true, no offence under Section 406 could be made out. There was no entrustment to bring home the charges under Section 406. The factum of non-return of loan amount does not make out any criminal case and the complainant ought not to be permitted to continue with such frivolous litigation. So far as other sections of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, they also do not appear to be attracted. The act of assault and theft of Rs. 317/- appear to be conjured up for the purposes of harassing accused persons. 8. After having given an anxious consideration over the long and short of the case, it is found that the order impugned is not fit to be sustained in the eyes of law. There does not appear to be any application of mind of the Court below while discharging its obligations under Section 245 of the Cr. P.C. 9. The order impugned therefore, is quashed. 10. The application stands allowed. Application allowed.