JAGANNATH BEHERA Vs. SANJUKTA DENGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Sec. 482, Crimial P.C. the petitioners pray for quashing the proceedings in ICC Case No. 29 of 2015 of the Court of the learned JMFC, Ranpur and also the order dated 13-3-2015 passed therein taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 294/323/452/302/506/34 of the IPC.

(2.) Initially, opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint petition (Annexure-1) before the learned JMFC, Ranpur alleging the commission of offences under Sections 452/304/302/34 of the IPC. The said complaint was registered as ICC Case No. 29 of 2014 and the learned JMFC, forwarded the same under Sec. 156(3) of the Crimial P.C. to Ranpur Police Station, where the complaint was treated as FIR and on the basis thereof, Ranpur P.S. Case No. 137 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 137 of 2014 was registered and investigation was taken up. During investigation, the witnesses were examined and a report from the Sum Hospital, where the deceased Padma Charan Denga, aged about 70 years, succumbed to death in course of treatment, was called for, whereupon the Medical Superintendent of the said Hospital reported that the deceased expired on 24-10-2013 at 5-30 p.m. in the Causality of natural cause of cardio respiratory failure. Therefore, no Medio legal Case (MLC) was registered at the Hospital. During investigation, the police also found that the son of the deceased (husband of the complainant) is a rowdy person, always engaged in quarrel with his father (deceased) and also once assaulted him whereupon the petitioners intervened and got the matter compromised, but the son of the deceased was not satisfied and instigated his wife to file the complaint. After taking the dead body from Sum Hospital, he cremated the dead body without informing the police, and complaint was filed nearly five months thereafter, i.e., on 11-3-2014 without lodging any report before the police. On completion of investigation, having found that no case is made out against the petitioners, the police submitted final form stating the case to be false one. Opposite party No. 1 (complainant) filed protest petition on 21-2-2015, which was registered as ICC No. 29 of 2015 and the learned Magistrate conducted enquiry under Sec. 202, Crimial P.C. and by his order dated 13-3-2015 took cognizance of the offences as stated above. In the original complaint petition, it is alleged that the complainant's family had been ex-communicated from the village by the petitioners, who were also terrorizing the family members of the complainant and collecting fine from them. The husband of the complainant and her husband's brother stayed outside in connection with their services in the Army and Border Security Force respectively and that on 23-10-2013 at about 5.00 p.m., the accused persons trespassed into the house of the complainant and abused her father-in-law (deceased) in filthy language and demanded Rs. 10,000.00 as fine or else the complainant's family members would not be allowed to stay in the village and that when the deceased denied to give the money the accused persons dealt fist blows and kicks to the deceased, who became senseless and, thereafter, they went away. The complainant and others took the deceased to Sum Hospital for treatment and on 24-10-2013 the deceased died in the hospital.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, though the complainant alleged the occurrence to have taken place on 23-10-2013 and the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 24-10-2013, neither she nor any other family members having lodged any report with the police immediately after the alleged occurrence, filing of the complaint nearly five months after the alleged occurrence is an after thought meant to harass the petitioners. It is also stated that because of the report of the Medical Superintendent of Sum Hospital and Institute of Medical Sciences that the death of the complainant's father-in-law occurred due to natural cause of cardio respiratory failure, the learned J.M.F.C. has gone wrong in taking cognizance of the offences including the offence under Sec. 302, IPC. It was also submitted by him that after registration of the complaint as FIR the police during investigation came to find that the complainant's husband (son of the deceased) was not pulling on well with the deceased and also once assaulted him when the petitioners had intervened, which had enraged the complainant's husband and that at his instigation the false complaint was filed by the complainant against the petitioners.