R S CHAUHAN AND OTHERS Vs. RAVIPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order dated 18.3.2011 and the proceedings in furtherance to the aforesaid order passed by Special Railway Magistrate in Criminal Case No.1183/2011 filed by the respondent whereby cognizance under sections 323, 347, 344, 327, 386, 329, 387 and 389 of IPC has been taken against the petitioners.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent has filed a private M.Cr.C.No.3780/2011 (R.S. Chauhan and others Vs. State of M.P. ) complaint before Special Railway Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior on 18.2.2011 alleging therein that on 1.2.2011 when complainant had come from Bhind to Gwalior with his brother Prakash by Train, at that time petitioners had caught hold brother of the complainant and bring him to Police Station, G.R.P. After that petitioners detained Prakash and one R.S. Chauhan has taken the mobile phone and Rs.260/- from the complainant and thereafter R.S. Chauhan released the complainant's brother Prakash and said that give me Rs.1,50,000/- and 500 grams Gold, thereafter I will release your brother otherwise I will implicate him in any case. In the complaint the complainant further alleged that all the accused persons have used to commit Maarpeet, with him. The accused R.S. Chauhan, Jagdish Prasad and Ram Prakash have assaulted to the complainant by means of Lathi and Santosh and Manoj have committed maarpeet with the complainant by kicks and fists, therefore, the complainant has sustained grievous injuries. It has also been averred in the complaint by the complainant that the accused R.S. Chauhan told to the mother of the complainant on mobile phone that bring Rs.1,50,000/- and gold. It has also been averred by complainant that other co-accused persons have also contacted to mother of the complainant, when brother of the complainant Prakash came at Thana to meet his brother then all the accused persons have committed maarpeet with him. It has also been alleged by the complainant that one Veerendra, Sovaran and brother were also detained in Police Station from last 15 days. When accused persons was committing maarpeet of complainant then all these persons were also present there. It has also been mentioned that on 15.2.2011 when the Advocate of complainant has submitted an application before the Court below then the Court below had appointed a commissioner M.Cr.C.No.3780/2011 (R.S. Chauhan and others Vs. State of M.P. ) and search warrant was issued and when the commissioner came to the Police Station then he found that complainant has illegally detained, thereafter the statements of detainee Veerendra and Sovaran were recorded and the Panchnama has been prepared and the respondent had prayed for registration of the case against the accused persons. After filing of the complaint, the Court below has enquired the matter and after completion of enquiry has passed the order dated 18.3.2011 whereby the cognizance under sections 323, 347, 344, 327, 386, 329, 387 and 389 of IPC has been taken against the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent has filed private complaint with regard to wrongfully confined him on 1.2.2011 and it has been further alleged by the complainant that the accused persons have extorted him in fear of death and grievous hurt and causing injury to extort property. The entire incident which is alleged to have taken place on 1.2.2011, but the application under section 97 of Cr.P.C. filed by the brother of the complainant on 15.2.2011 before the Court below, it is submitted that during the period 1.2.2011 to 15.2.2011 the complainant has not filed any application and this shows the conduct of the complainant is highly suspicious. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as per the complaint and as well as statements general allegation has been made by the complainant with regard to the Maarpeet, however, no specific role has been assigned to any of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is no ingredient of section 327 of IPC is available either in complaint or in the statement for constitute the alleged offence. It has been further submitted that as per complaint entire incident of extortion has taken place on 1.2.2011 and since 1.2.2011 to 15.2.2011 M.Cr.C.No.3780/2011 (R.S. Chauhan and others Vs. State of M.P. ) no complaint has been made either by the complainant himself or his brother and also no explanation of such inordinate delay has been given by the respondent. It has been further submitted that petitioners are the public servants and they were discharging their official duty. Learned counsel further submits that looking to the act of the Commissioner appointed by the Court below it cannot be said that the fair and impartial enquiry has been made and the impugned order passed on such enquiry report is not sustainable in the eyes of law. On these grounds learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 18.3.2011 and the proceedings in furtherance of that order passed by Court below.