VINOD JAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Uday Shankar Choudhary, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Ram, learned APP for the State.

(2.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') with a prayer to quash the order dtd. 20/11/2014 passed by learned Railway Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ara, Bhojpur, in Complaint Case No. 09/2014 whereby the cognizance of the offences under Ss. 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short 'IPC') has been taken against the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Uday Shankar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is resident of Maharashtra state having no connection to Bihar state and the complainant and his son are complete stranger to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner is an RTI activist in Mumbai and has remained involved in getting relevant informations against several persons in respect of the wrongs and irregularities committed or suspected to be committed and one builder in Mumbai being aggrieved with the activity of this petitioner under the RTI Act got the several cases lodged against the petitioner in many districts of Bihar in collusion with his labourers who belong to Bihar state. In the present matter, the prosecution story narrated by the complainant, is completely imaginary and not believable and the most important thing is that after the cognizance of the alleged offences, the complainant left his attendance before the trial court and the purpose of the complainant was only to harass the petitioner by getting the arrest warrant issued through the court against the petitioner and by getting his appearance in Bihar state to put him in fear and thereafter, extort money from him. In this matter, several notices were sent to the complainant who is here the O.P. No. 2 to the address detailed in the complaint but all the processes were returned as un-served and then it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the complainant is a completely fake and fictitious person and then at the direction of this Court, an enquiry, to verify the present residing address of the complainant, was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sadar, Ara and in this regard, a report was sent by him through the Superintendent of Police of Bhojpur, Ara and the same is available before this Court on the case record. It is further submitted that Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Ara mentioned in his report that regarding the address of complainant shown by him in his complaint, local persons, local chowkidars and Ward Parshads were enquired and they stated that no such person like the complainant was residing nor is a resident in the area concerned relating to the complainant's address which is in itself sufficient to show the intention of the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that during the enquiry only the complainant and his son appeared and recorded their statements and except them, no other person appeared and no documentary evidence with regard to the proof of payment of the alleged amount was given and in the complaint, the complainant disclosed his son as sole witness and as per the allegation, a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 was taken on different dates by the petitioner from the complainant and his son for the admission of complainant's son in an engineering college but regarding this allegation, except the bald statement of the complainant and his son, there is nothing and further, no documentary evidence showing the qualification of complainant's son for being eligible to get the admission in an engineering college at the relevant time was given.