ABDUS SALAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Khatim Reza, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi for opposite party no. 2 and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing the revisional order dated 4.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C. 1st, Motihari, East Champaran in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2007 by which the order dated 16.1.2007 passed by the S.D.J.M., Raxaul, East Champaran dismissing the Complaint Case No. 213 of 2006 filed by the petitioner has been affirmed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order states that the petitioner had filed a complaint case in which it was alleged that opposite party no. 2 who was at the relevant time Officer-in-charge of Ramgarhwa Police Station alongwith 5-6 unknown persons and policemen came to his house at 6 P.M. on 8.8.2006 when the petitioner alongwith his wife was away at Bettiah and in their absence the accused persons who were in civil dress had forcibly entered in his house and also after assaulting the inmates threatened them with his service revolver and looted the house belongings which are described in the complaint petition amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is further the case in the complaint petition that no receipt for the looted articles were given and they were taken away forcibly. The reason mentioned is that the accused no. 1, that is O.P, No. 2 in the present case, had immoral intentions with regard to the wife and major daughters of the complainant and due to him being asked not to visit the house, he has taken it otherwise and also threatened to teach the complainant and his family a lesson. The Court below examined the complainant on solemn affirmation on 14.8.2006 which was followed by deposition by three other witnesses during the course of inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. on 11.9.2006 and 3.11.2006. It is submitted that the deposition of the complainant and the three witnesses clearly went to prove that the accused had committed offences punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.