Jaideopatti Tola v. Rankipatti, Police Station
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5979 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Bhushan Jha @ Shashi Bhushan Jha, son of Late Sushil Kumar Jha. 2. Sanjay Jha @ Sanjay Kumar Jha son of Bhushan Jha @ Shashi Bhushan Jha. 3. Madan Mohan Jha, son of Late Bhog Narayan Jha. 4. Kaushlendra Kumar Jha, son of Late Gajendra Narayan Jha. 5. Ranjan Devi, wife of Pankaj Kumar Jha. 6. Shail Devi Wife of Late Sushil Jha @ Sushil Kumar Jha. All resident of Village & P.O. Thengaha, Police Station: Sakatpur, District: Darbhanga. 7. Dinesh Jha, son of Late Raghunandan Jha, resident of Village: Rajour, Police Station: Madhepur, District-Madhubani. .... .... Petitioners 1. The State of Bihar 2. Nibha Devi, wife of Sri Suresh Jha, resident of Village: Jaideopatti Tola Versus Rankipatti, Police Station: Ghanshyampur, District: Darbhanga. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha & Mr. Shyamlal, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Arun Kumar Jha, Mr. Lalit Narain Jha, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 4. 19-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) seeks quashing of the entire criminal
Facts
proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. C.R. No. 2291 of 2011 (T.R. No. 2725 of 2012) as well as the order dated 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5979 of 2013 (4) dt.19-09-2013 2 / 8 16.08.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Darbhanga by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 341/323/354/342/504/379 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the complaint case filed by the opposite party no. 2, it is alleged that her daughter, aged about 14 years, who was taking tuition from petitioner no. 2, had gone for the said purpose on 21.09.2011 and when she did not return, upon search the complainant came to know that she had been kidnapped by petitioner no. 2 for which Sakatpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2011 was lodged. It is further stated that the girl was recovered by the police from the custody of one Sajan Kumar in the District of Samastipur. The allegation is that petitioner no. 2 had sold the girl to the said Sajan Kumar after kidnapping her, due to fear. The complainant goes to allege that on 15.12.2011 when she was returning after performing Puja at Janaki Mandir, she was surrounded by the petitioners no. 1 and 2 who being armed with Revolver forced her to put thumb impression on blank paper and took away various articles and also gold ear-ring and nose pin having a total worth of Rs. 105750/-. It is further alleged that the complainant was confined for an hour in a house and the petitioners were insisting that the husband of the complainant withdraw the case lodged against them and should make an agreement for such 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5979 of 2013 (4) dt.19-09-2013 3 / 8 withdrawal. However, later on due to intervention of the witnesses she was set free and the petitioners had threatened the family with dire consequences, if the case was not withdrawn.
Legal Reasoning
Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Jha vs. State of Bihar reported in 2013 (2) PLJR 571. Learned counsel submits that in the present case also looking at the matter in totality, the allegations are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such conclusion and the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite them due to personal grudge. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the mala fide intention of the complainant would be apparent from the fact that all the family members 7 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5979 of 2013 (4) dt.19-09-2013 7 / 8 of the petitioner no. 2 have been made accused including old ladies being the Aunt and Grandmother. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submit that the allegation in the complaint case, which is under challenge in the present proceeding, and Sakatpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2011 have to be viewed separately inasmuch as in Sakatpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2011, the allegation is with regard to the minor daughter of the complainant having been kidnapped by petitioner no. 2, whereas in the present complaint case the allegation is with regard to assault, on a much later date, by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the Court below after applying its judicial mind and finding materials against the petitioners had taken cognizance and thus at this stage, the Court may not interfere and quash the entire criminal proceeding. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the materials brought on record, this Court finds substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. It is apparent that after lodging of a case against the petitioner no. 2 by the husband of the complainant on 24.09.2011 and the same having been proved to be totally false as far as the petitioners are concerned, coupled with the fact that a complaint case has been filed by the mother of the petitioner no. 2 against the 8 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5979 of 2013 (4) dt.19-09-2013 8 / 8 husband of the complainant (Informant of Sakatpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2011), the present case having been lodged and the sole reason as per the complainant for the incident alleged being the intention of the petitioners to get Sakatpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2011 withdrawn, is not only absurd but highly improbable. Thus, the present criminal proceeding continuing would clearly be abuse of the process of the Court. Further, the decision of this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Chandra Shekhar Jha (Supra) supports the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, quashes the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case C.R. No. 2291 of 2011 (T.R. No. 2725 of 2012) as well as the order taking cognizance dated 16.08.2012. The application stands allowed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anand Kr.
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the whole episode cannot be viewed in isolation and has to be seen in the background of all the events which start from 20th September, 2011. Learned counsel submits that the husband of the complainant had lodged Sakatpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2011 on 24.09.2011 in which it was alleged that petitioner no. 2 had forcibly taken away his minor daughter on a bus going towards Darbhanga. Learned counsel submits that the police, acting pursuant to the same F.I.R., had recovered the so called victim girl along with one Sajan Kumar from Samastipur District on 03.11.2011. On the very next day i.e., 04.11.2011, her statement was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code. Copy of the same has been brought on record. Learned counsel refers to the same and submits that the girl has disclosed her age to be 20 years and has said that the petitioner no. 2 has absolutely no role to play in her going away with the said Sajan Kumar and she had eloped on her own free will due to pressure of her father to get married to petitioner no. 2. It is further submitted that later on an application was filed before the concerned Magistrate by the 4 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5979 of 2013 (4) dt.19-09-2013 4 / 8 parents of Sajan Kumar praying that the girl be released in their custody which was allowed on 05.11.2011. Learned counsel submits that later on the police have also submitted charge-sheet in Sakatpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2011 on 25.01.2012, in which the petitioner no. 2 has not been sent up for trial and against Sajan Kumar the case has been found true under Sections 363/366A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel also refers to the order dated 14.03.2012 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga by which cognizance has been taken by the Court under Sections 363/366A of the Indian Penal Code against the said Sajan Kumar, whereas the proceeding against the petitioner no. 2 has been dropped. Learned counsel submits that though a protest petition was filed on 15.12.2011 but from the order taking cognizance dated 14.03.2012, it is apparent that there was also a compromise petition filed. Learned counsel submits that after the order dated 05.11.2011, releasing the so called victim girl in custody of the mother of Sajan Kumar or after the order dated 14.03.2012 taking cognizance against Sajan Kumar and closing the case against petitioner no. 2, neither any protest petition nor any application before any superior Court has been filed. Learned counsel refers to C.R. Case No. 1825 of 2011, copy of which has been brought on record in the present proceeding, filed by the wife of petitioner no. 1 and mother of 5 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5979 of 2013 (4) dt.19-09-2013 5 / 8 petitioner no. 2, against husband of the complainant and others in which the allegation is that on 20.09.2011, the husband of the complainant who is informant of Sakatpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2011 had insisted for marriage of her daughter (the alleged victim in the present case) with the petitioner no. 2, which was refused. It was alleged that the husband of the complainant along with others had come in a drunken state and upon refusal to agree with the marriage proposal, at gunpoint had taken away jewellery worth Rs. 1,50,000/-, cash Rs. 8,000/- and cloth worth Rs. 5,000/- after putting them under fear of death and had also assaulted with ‘Lathi’, ‘Danda’ and fists and that the accused had gone away only after the villagers had assembled there. Learned counsel submits that in view of the above, there is direct link and nexus between the case at hand, Sakatpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2011 and C.R. Case No. 1825 of 2011, which incidentally was filed on 27.09.2011. Learned counsel submits that once the girl was recovered on 03.11.2011, her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code on 04.11.2011 exonerating the petitioners and the Court releasing the so called victim girl in favour of mother of Sajan Kumar on 05.11.2011, there was absolutely no occasion for the petitioners to have indulged in the activity for which they have been accused and that too for the purposes of forcing the husband of the complainant to 6 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5979 of 2013 (4) dt.19-09-2013 6 / 8 withdraw the case. Learned counsel submits that the entire complaint case discloses that the reason for the alleged incident is the pendency of Sakatpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2011 in which the petitioners had been made accused and for which, according to the complainant, pressure was being mounted for its withdrawal. Learned counsel further submitted that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the allegations against the petitioners are not only absurd but highly improbable. It is submitted that in such cases the Courts have held that the criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. For such proposition learned counsel has relied upon the decision of a