RAM GOVIND THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CR . Misc. 1100 of 1998 has been heard together along with Cr. Misc. No. 21278/98 as they both have been preferred for quashing the order dated 13.2.97 passed by Shri G.S. Ram Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sasaram in complaint case no. 24/97 corresponding to Tr. No. 1038/97 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken u/ss. 147, 323, 342 and 504 of the IPC and also for quashing the petition of complaint on the basis of which complaint case no. 24/97 was registered in the Court of CJM, Rohtas at Sasaram.

(2.) IT appears that complainant/OP no. 2 Sunil Kumar Sharad filed a petition of complaint vide complaint case no. 24/97 in the Court of CJM, Rohtas at Sasaram against Dinesh Chand (petitioner of Cr. Misc. no. 1100 of 1998) Ram Govind Thakur, A.R. Sharma, Shambhu Singh and R.K.R Sinha (Petitioners of Cr. Misc. no. 21278/98) for an occurrence which had allegedly taken place on 6.1.1997 at 12.30 PM in the guest house of Sahu Jain. The ease of the complainant, in short, is that on 6.1.1997 at 12.30 PM he went to meet the Official Liquidator of M/s Rohtas Industries Ltd. to discuss the local problems in respect of water, supply of electricity etc. The complainant introduced himself as President of Dehri Prakhand Yuva Janta Dal to petitioner Dinesh Chand and tried to discuss the local problems but the petitioner refused to listen him and asked him to go away from the office. It is alleged that petitioner Dinesh Chand indulged in scuffle with the complainant during course of which the complainant lost his wristwatch which was taken away by the petitioner. The petitioner called the other persons of management named R.G. Thakur, A.R. Verma, Shambhu Singh and R.K.P. Sinha who assaulted the complainant. It is further alleged that on the order given by petitioner Dinesh Chand to assault the complainant, he was kept confined for four hours in a room and threatening to shoot him was also given. It appears that learned Magistrate examined the complainant on S.A and also the statement of two witnesses examined during enquiry and after being satisfied that prima facie case is made out took cognizance against the petitioners and ordered to issue summons against them.

(3.) PETITIONERS have further taken stand that prior to petitioner Dinesh Chand, one R.C. Meena was Official Liquidator in -charge of Rohtas Industries Ltd. and other assets of the Company. In pursuance of notification vide annexure -2 petitioner Dinesh Chand took charge of the company under liquidation on 12.6.96. In view of directions issued from time to time the Official Liquidator being under the control of Hon ble Company Judge of this court has been discharging his official functions of Rohtas Industries as well as his office at Patna. When the local inhabitants and some of the so -called leaders came to know about the aforesaid orders passed by the Hon ble Company Judge and execution of those orders started agitation and even did not hesitate in threatening petitioner Dinesh Chand as a result thereof the petitioner had to make request to Hon ble Company Judge for providing security and, accordingly, the SP, Rohtas provided armed security to the petitioner.