BHARTENDU PRASAD DEB Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.7.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhagalpur in Complaint Case No. 365 of 2000 whereby, it had taken cognizance of the offence under sections 324, 385 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of process against the petitioner.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present case are that opposite party no. 2 Babiu Kumar Singh lodged a petition of complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, inter alia, alleging that he is the cleaner (Khalasi) of Truck bearing Registration No, BPN 7899 of which one Satya Narain Mandal is the driver. According to the complainant, on 26.4.2000, the complainant as also the driver was proceeding towards Kahalgaon carrying coal in the truck and according to the complainant, all papers for transporting the coal and other documents required for plying the truck, were available. According to the complainant, when the truck reached near Rajaun Police Station at about 9 P.M., the Officer -in -Charge of Rajaun Police Station i.e. petitioner and an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police of that Police Station signalled to stop the truck and they demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/ - from the driver which was declined by him. According to the allegation, the Officer -in - Charge and the Sub Inspector of Police stated that they are paid a sum of Rs. 1000/ - from each of the truck transporting coal and as such, the driver had to pay that amount. The driver however, refused to make payment and proceeded with the truck at which the aforesaid two persons along with 5 -6 constables armed with rifles, chased the truck and apprehended the same at Ghatnagar crossing in Bhagalpur town. It has been further alleged that the complainant jumped out of the truck and he saw that the aforesaid two police officers and the armed constables dragged the driver out from the truck and assaulted him by the butt of the rifle. According to the complainant, when the truck driver looked almost dead; accused persons threw him by the side of the road. Thereafter, the petitioner drove the jeep himself and asked the Jeep driver to drive the truck to the Police Station. It has been further stated in the petition of complaint that the accused persons have taken away the truck valued at Rs. 4 lacs loaded with coal worth Rs. 20,000/ - as also the important documents and clothes of the complainant and the driver. The complainant had further stated that in the following morning, he handed over the driver to the owner of the truck and in order to save his life, he was taken to the Kahalgaon Government Referal Hospital. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and four witnesses including the truck driver were examined during the course of inquiry. The learned Magistrate, on consideration of the allegation made in the petition of complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and four witnesses examined during the course of inquiry, prima facie, held that offence under sections 324, 385 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out and accordingly, directed for issuance of summons.

(3.) MR . Ramchandra Jha, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner refers to the aforesaid pleas of the petitioner and contends that from the aforesaid fact, it is evident that the allegation made against the petitioner is false. I do not find any substance in this submission of the learned counsel. It is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance and issuance of process, learned Magistrate is only required to be satisfied that the materials laid before it, prima facie, show commission of the offence. At this stage, the defence of the accused is not to be gone into. The plea taken by the petitioner that the complainant had filed the complaint in collusion with the driver and owner of the truck to save their skin from the police case instituted against them, in my opinion is the defence of the petitioner which is not fit to be gone into at this stage.