UMA SHANKER LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 26.04.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge VIth, Rohtas in Sessions Trial No 254 of 1997. By the said order, the Additional Sessions Judge VIth has rejected the petition for discharge filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) The short fact of the case is that opposite party No 2 filed a complaint vide complaint case No 265 of 1994 for the offence under Section 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the complainant that while she had gone to deliver coal to the petitioner, the petitioner took her in the side room and committed rape and the complainant raised hulla on which a few witnesses arrived there. Subsequently the complainant went to the police station for getting the first information report registered which was refused by the police. The complainant also was examined by medical expert. On the aforesaid allegation, the complaint petition was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram and after conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. When the case came to the stage of charge, a petition was filed for discharge on behalf of the petitioner which has been rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) Mr Firoze Ahmad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, submits that the present complaint petition was got filed at the instance of Nand Kishore Sahay one of the old enemy of the petitioner. It was submitted that son of Nand Kishore Sahay, namely, Madhup Kumar who was a neighbour of the petitioner was made accused in connection with rape case committed on the minor daughter of the petitioner and in that case, the son of Nand Kishore Sahay was put on trial and finally he was convicted and sentenced. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought on record Photostat copy of the certified copy of the judgment passed in Trial No 22 of 1992 in which Madhup Kumar, a neighbour of petitioner was convicted and sentenced. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that at the stage of enquiry itself, the complainant had filed a petition that she had filed the complaint petition as per the instructions given by one Lalan Prasad Srivastava. It was further submitted that Lalan Prasad Srivastava had filed a false case against the petitioner in which police, after investigation, submitted final form and recommended for initiation of proceeding under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against Lalan Prasad Srivastava. On the aforesaid ground, it has been prayed that order dated 26.04.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge VIth, Rohtas may be set aside.