====================================================== Amrendra Yadav, S/O Late Uttim Lal Yadav, Resident of Village - Hariraha, P.S v. P.S. – Ratanpura, District – Supaul
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38302 of 2012 ====================================================== Amrendra Yadav, S/O Late Uttim Lal Yadav, Resident of Village - Hariraha, P.S. - Karjain Bazar, District- Supaul .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State of Bihar 2. Shivnandan Yadav, S/O. Late Chakai Yadav, R/O Village – Satanpatti, Versus P.S. – Ratanpura, District – Supaul .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary-I, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER 4 06-08-2013 Heard. This is a petition for quashing the order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Supaul passed in S.
Legal Reasoning
T. No. 145 of 2010 arising out of Complaint Case No. 215C of 2004 by which petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected as well as for quashing the criminal proceeding. The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint by the complainant, Shivnandan Yadav, is that he had been to Delhi and Punjab for earning the livelihood leaving his wife and widow mother, when he returned he did not found his wife in the house then he asked his mother about his wife, she disclosed that his wife, accused no. 1, has illicit relation with accused nos. 3 and 5 and they always used to visit his house. It is further alleged that accused no. 3 along with other accused persons took away money worth Rs.13,000/- and the Silver “Hasuli” and golden jewellery and fled away along with accused no. 5. It is further alleged that when the complainant went to his Sasural, accused no. 2, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38302 of 2012 (4) dt.06-08-2013 2 father-in-law and all the accused persons collected abused and assaulted. The complainant again went to Sasural on 18.08.2004 and reached at the house of accused no. 4, Amarendra Yadav the then Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat then all the accused persons collected, tied the complainant in rope, assaulted and threatened to throw him in Koshi after killing him. After filing of the complaint, the complainant and the witnesses were examined on solemn affirmation and after taking into consideration the statement of the complainant and witnesses process issued after taking cognizance of offence under Sections 366, 376, 497, 406, 384, 379, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The case committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter a petition was filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of petitioner who is accused no. 4 in the complaint. However, petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the only ground mentioned for rejecting the petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. is that cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and there is sufficient material. It is submitted that in the complaint petition itself there is no specific overt act mentioned against the petitioner and the only allegation that the complainant went on 18.08.2011 at the house of this petitioner and asked for permanent solution and in the meantime it is stated that all the accused persons collected, tied in rope, assaulted and threatened to kill him but there is no specific overt act mentioned against the petitioner nor there is specific assertion that the petitioner was also the party to the said assault or overt act alleged in the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38302 of 2012 (4) dt.06-08-2013 3 complaint. It has further been contended that the complainant during his statement under inquiry under Section 200 and witnesses in inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. has not stated the name of the petitioner nor even made any specific or even general allegation or overt act against the petitioner and hence, in the entire enquiry there is nothing against the petitioner who is accused no. 4 of the complaint petition. Hence, having regard to the fact since there is no specific overt act mentioned in the complaint nor the complainant or the witnesses in their statement during inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. have ever named this petitioner there is no evidence and there is nothing against the petitioner to suggest his implication in the occurrence and hence, no offence made out as per the statement of the complaint and witness during inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Hence, the case has travelled under the category of 1, 2, 3 of Bhajan Lal’s Case reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SSC 335 where it has been ruled that “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused”, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38302 of 2012 (4) dt.06-08-2013 4 hence, in this contingency there is nothing to suggest that the case should proceed against the petitioner and is required to be quashed. However, it is true that the Court while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should cautiously use the jurisdiction sparingly in exceptional cases to prevent the abuse of the process of the court in the interest of justice. However, applying the principle in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that in the complaint petition there is no specific allegation against the petitioner of any act of commission and omission except that the complainant went to the house of the petitioner on 18.08.2004. However, neither the complainant nor the witnesses have in their deposition during the inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. have disclosed the name of the petitioner nor have they attributed any role to petitioner and hence, allowing the prosecution is merely an abuse of process of the court. Hence, in such contingency, the exercise of inherent jurisdiction is in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, so having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the criminal prosecution against
Decision
the petitioner is hereby set aside and the petition is allowed. Kundan/- (Gopal Prasad, J)