MOHAMMAD ZAKIR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this order, I propose to dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 45691-M of 2003 and Crl. Misc. No. 45906-M of 2003 as prayer for pre-arrest bail has been made by one Sh. Mohd. Zakir Hussain-accused in both the petitions which have been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Cr. P.C.), (to be referred as First and Second petition). In the first petition, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 161 dated 18-7-2003 registered under Sections 323 and 506, IPC P. S. Mahesh Nagar, Ambala and a similar prayer has been made in the second petition by Sh. Mohd. Zakir Hussain along with one Sh. Jameel Ahmed in case FIR No. 190 dated 29-8-2003 registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 471, 124-A, 153-A, 295 read with Section 120-B, IPC, P. S. Mahesh Nagar, Ambala.

(2.) The prosecution version as projected in the FIR No. 161 dated 18-7-2003 is based on a complaint made by Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Laxami Narain Sharma, who is father of one Ms. Avedna Sharma. According to the allegations made by the complainant in the FIR, Ms. Avedna Sharma his daughter was married to Sh. Amitabh Thakur at Delhi and before her marriage he used to receive threats of dire consequences if he married his daughter elsewhere. The complainant suspected the involvement of petitioner-accused Sh. Mohd. Zakir Hussain, Assistant Engineer working in the Wakf Board, Ambala because he had been trying to allure his daughter Ms. Avedna Sharma. In this regard, the complainant approached the office of the Wakf Board to make him understand but he was not found in the office. The complainant further alleged in the FIR that on 11-7-2003 at about 8.30 he was present along with his son Anuj and his relative Shamsher Singh Kaushal at the gate of his house. They were talking about the marriage programme of Ms. Avedna Sharma. At that time, a person alighted from white colour Maruti Car bearing registration No. HR-02-0016 and claimed that he was Sh. Mohd. Zakir Hussain and why did the complainant go to his office. He is alleged to have threatened the complainant that if Ms. Avedna Sharma was married elsewhere, then your entire family will be eliminated and be prepared for the consequences. He alleged to have caught the complainant from the neck and slapped him. On the intervention of the son of the complainant and his relation Shamsher Singh Kaushal, the petitioner-accused Sh. Mohd. Zakir Hussain went away and gave a threat that the complainant along with other would be killed on the first available opportunity. The complainant has claimed that on account of the prestige of the family, he had kept quite and married his daughter on the date fixed. According to the FIR, the allegations disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 323 and 506, IPC.

(3.) The second FIR, which is subjectmatter of second petition is based on a complaint filed by one Anuj Sharma, brother of Ms. Avedna Sharma. The complaint as presented before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, who exercising powers under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. has referred the same for investigation to the police of concerned police station. The allegations as disclosed in the FIR disclose that the petitioners have committed various offences. The petition seeking quashing of the aforementioned FIR being Crl. Misc. No. 40509-M of 2003 has already been dismissed by this Court on 11-9-2003 holding that the allegations constitute the commission of cognizable offences and cannot prima facie be held to be false. The offences under Sections 420 and 466, IPC are non-bailable and the sentence provided for those offences is seven years and fine. The offences under Sections 124-A, 153-A, 295 are also non-bailable and so is the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B.