BISHUNDEO YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the state.

(2.) Petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR of Khusrupur P.S. Case 43 of 1997 and the consequent Sessions Trial No. 841 of 1996 pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, XIth, Patna.

(3.) It has been shown from Annexure-1 that on 9.4.1997 the informant gave a report to the Officer Incharge of Khusrupur P.S. on the basis whereof a case under Section 341, 354, and 509 of the IPC was instituted. It further appears from Annexure-2 that in that case the informant filed a protest-cum-complaint petition alleging that she had been subjected to an offence under Section 376 IPC but the police officer at Khusrupur P.S. played fraud with her and obtained her thumb impression on a plain paper and did not call her for medical examination and she is shocked to see the accused moving out freely. She disclosed that she is a member of scheduled caste and the accused is an influential person and hence she has given a representation in the matter to Dy.S.P, Patnacity on 13.4.1997.