NILU DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the two petitioners have prayed for quashing of Bachhwara P. S. case No. 11(4) 74 instituted against the petitioners Under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code').

(2.) In order to appreciate the points involved in this case it will be necessary to state some material facts. One Ramsobhit Rai resident of village Rajapur, Police Station Bachhwara in the district of Begusarai, had lodged first information report against the petitioners on the 9th April 1974 in respect of the offence Under Section 406 of the Code alleging therein that petitioner No. 1 is a dancing girl and petitioner No. 2 is her mother. The informant fell in love with petitioner No. 1 and on that account the members of the family of the informant were annoyed with him. The informant was carrying on business of loading and unloading of coal at Dalsingsarai Railway Station and out of lucrative business he had purchased an Ambassador Car which was registered as B. B. J. 2530. Due to the contact of the informant with petitioner No. 1 in the matter of love with her, his business was closed in the month of October 1973. The members of the family of the informant were demanding money from the informant. During the course of the business the informant used to visit Muzaffarpore. Due to the closure of the business, he went to his village home and his other members of the family threatened him to partition the ancestral properties. The informant was keeping indifferent health. Hearing about his illness both the petitioners visited his village home at Rajapur on the 4th March, 1973, and learnt about the family dispute. The petitioners advised him to keep whatever money he possessed in the bank locker of petitioner No. 2 Thereupon he handed over Rs. 1000.00 to the petitioners in order to keep the same in the locker of petitioner No. 2. He also transferred his Ambassador car in the farzi name of one Meena Kumari and handed over the document of transfer to the petitioners. After some time the petitioners went away in the said car which was being driven by his driver Hia Lal. When the informant came to Muzaffarpore on the 3rd April 1974 he did not see his car in the possession of the petitioners. On being asked petitioner No. 1 told him that the car had gone out. But even after two or three days, the car did not return and he could not know what had happened with the car, He was also demanding back Rs. 31000.00 from the petitioners whereupon both the petitioners refused to return the same and threatened the informant that they would get him killed which led to the filing of the case referred to above.

(3.) On the third October 1974 the Investigating Officer sought permission of the Superintendent of Police (respondent No. 2) to submit final form and also for permission to prosecute the informant Under Section 211 of the Code.