RAJ KUMAR RAJAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 28-10-1993 through which congnizance of the offence under Sections 497, 498, 364/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chasibasa in Sadar Post P. S. Case No. 37/93 and also for quashing this entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioner,

(2.) The fact in short giving rise this application is that Nirmal Kumar Sinha lodged an FIR on 12-6-1993 alleging therein that he was living in a rented house in Mohalla Bara Bazar at Chaibasa and he had gone out of his house on 8-6-1993 in the early morning in connection with the official work and when he returned, he found his wife Punam missing and his two children were kept in the housa of a rerlation and subsequently he learnt that this very petitioner abducted her wife along with valuable ornaments and had taken her to Calcutta in order to kill her and to take the valuable ornaments etc. On the written report of the informant, a police case was instituted on 12-6-1993. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 497, 498, 364/120-B, IPC as against this petideclared as absconder and one Sheo Kumar Sahi and the learned Chief tioner who was Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence in C.R. Case No. 313/93 vide order dated 28-10-1993.

(3.) At the very outset the learned lawyer for the petitioner challenged the order of cognizance on the ground that the learned C. J. M. took cognizance of the offence without application of the judicial mind and that too the order is bad for the reason that practically there is no evidence which has come during investigation to prove prima facie offence under Section 364, IPC and further the prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 497 and 498 of the IPC is also not maintainable in view of the provision of Section 198, Cr. P. C. it was further contended that in the case diary there is no evidence at all that the wife of the informant was abducted by the petitioner and others for commission of her murder ; rather it can be said that during the investigation this much has come that the lady Punam Devi, admittedly a married woman of the informant, was anticed away by the petitioner for commission of adultery or with the mention that she may be forced in illicit intercourse with the petitioner or any other person.