DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the complainant opposite party no.2.

(2.) This is an application for quashing of the order dated 14.07.2004 passed by the learned Sr. G.C. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan, passed in Complaint Case No. 1170 of 2003, Trial No. 1330 of 2004 taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 323, 342, 379 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The relevant facts of this case is that opposite party no.2 filed the Complaint Case No. 1170/2003 on 21.08.2004 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, stating therein that on 19.08.2003 at about 11 A.M. while he was sitting along with his father Parsuram Prasad at their roadside shop at Titra Bazar, the petitioners with four constables arrived there on a jeep and petitioner no.2, a peon, came to their shop asked about father of the complainant who was being called by petitioner no.1 who on inquiry disclosed that he is an officer of Co-operative Bank, Siwan, and has come to recover the loan earlier given to him. He was replied that payment has already been made to Chairman of PACs, Bhrigunath Prasad, on issuance of receipt of no dues certificate inspite of offer to show such documents the petitioners with help of constables arrested father of the complainant with a direction to him to come at Siwan with all relevant papers. Who followed them and shown relevant papers at Siwan, but there was an additional demand of Rs. 5,000/- which could not be paid resulting into wrongful confinement of complainants father in a dilapidated room having damaged roof and containing rain water etc. On query his father also narrated that he has been assaulted and deprived of Rs. 5,000/- with some change and also forced to put signatures and LTI on different papers. The complainant was also abused, when he enquired about such misbehaviour went to complain with District Co-Operative Officer, who also advised him to satisfy demands of petitioner no.1, even the police was not ready to entertain the complainant. The complainant who ultimately filed the complaint petition which was ready to be filed on 20.08.2003 itself, but, could be filed on 21.08.2003.