ASHOK KR. TODI Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these revisional applications arose from the Order No. 57 dated 21.04.2011 in S.C. 103 of 2008 and Order No. 1 dated 21.04.2011 in S.T. 2 (11) passed by the learned Court below. By the impugned orders, the learned Court below dismissed, the applications under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. of the present petitioners of C.R.R. 1396 of 2011 (Ashok Todi v. CBI), C.R.R. 1397 of 2011 (Pradip Todi v. CBI), C.R.R. 1549 of 2011 (Anil Saraogi v. CBI), C.R.R. 1573 of 2011 (Ajay Kumar v. CBI), C.R.R. 1499 of 2011 (S.M. Mohiuddin @ Pappu v. CBI), C.R.R. 3512 of 2011 (Sukanti Chakraborty, Krisnendu Das v. CBI), and thereafter framed charges under Sections 306/120B/506 of I.P.C. against Ashok Todi, Pradip Todi, S.M. Mohiuddin @ Pappu and under Sections 506/120B I.P.C. against Ajay Kumar, Sukanti Chakraborty and Krisnendu Das. The C.B.I as well as Rukbanur Rahaman also challenged the impugned order stating inter alia that the police officials also ought to have been charged under Section 306 of I.P.C. By the consent of the parties, all these revisional applications be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) By way of prefatory observations, I may be permitted to mention that even nearly after 70 years of our independence a few narrow-minded people have some superstitious beliefs. In spite of significant developments in modern science and technology, we find a few conservative people still believe that marriage must be within the same religion and of same financial status. Such baseless and unfounded attitude sometimes may lead to family disasters. The allegation, if proved, may be a glaring example of that. The young couple dreamt of a rosy life but within a week that became a jinxed matrimony. When the victim decided to take the help of police officials, the protectors allegedly took the role of predators. When he wanted to take the help of law enforcing agency, that agency turned a deaf ear to. As a result, the said law enforcing agency became a teasing mirage to the victim.

(3.) Before adverting to the rival contentions of the respective parties, let me unbox the prosecution case which contains the statements of about 116 charge-sheeted witnesses and many documents, most of which are of foreignsic importance.