VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 14.1.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Begusarai Mufassil P.S. Case No. 324/07 by which the prayer of the petitioner for taking cognizance against the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 11 has been rejected. The prosecution case, in brief, is that ten named accused persons (Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 11) came to the house of the father-in-law of the petitioner and by using abusive language asked whereabout of Mohan Rai at which it was said that he was not at his house. The action of the accused was protested by the family members of the father-in-law of the informant-petitioner. Thereafter, Sohan Rai was forcibly taken by the accused in place of Mohan Rai. It has been further alleged that the accused locked the family members of the informant in a room and fled away taking Sohan Rai in the vehicle. On the statement of the informant-petitioner, Begusarai Sadar Mufassil P.S. Case No. 324/07 was lodged for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 342 and 364/34 of the I.P.C. Subsequently, Section 302 of the I.P.C. was added against the accused. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused Rahul Rai vide charge-sheet no, 285/08. The case against the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 11 was found not true and the investigation against the other accused was kept pending. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the accused Rahul Rai and the case was transferred to the Court of other Judicial Magistrate for commitment and the office was directed to split up the record since the investigation against the co-accused was pending. A petition was fifed on behalf of the petitioner in the court of learned C.J.M. for taking cognizance against the accused (opposite party nos. 2 to 11), which has been rejected by the learned C.J.M. after hearing learned counsel for both the parties. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this application against the impugned order dated 14.1.2009.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for opposite party no.10. The opposite party nos. 2 to 9 and 11 have not appeared even after service of notice.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is sufficient material in the case diary to show that the accused opposite parties have committed the offence. The learned C.J.M. has also found that there is material against the accused to have committed offence, but he discarded their evidence as there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence other than the relatives of the deceased.