LAWS(PAT)-2007-2-47

ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On February 23, 2007
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short as Code) has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding and order dated 2.9.2003 passed by Sri Diwakar Mishra, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in complaint case No. 410/2003 whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance under Sections 147, 323, 343, 506 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT appears that complainant/OP No. 2 Shailendra Kumar Yadav filed a petition of complaint vide complaint case No. 410/2003 in the court of CJM, Saharsa on 28.5.03 against the present petitioner and three others for the occurrence dated 15.5.2003 and 20.5.2003. The case of complainant, in short, is that a case was registered at Saharsa police station regarding kidnapping of Rohit Kumar Jha against unknown persons. It is said that petitioner and one other accused started pressurizing the complainant to give name of Kishore Kumar Munna as kidnapper before the police and court as he was a candidate in the last assembly election against the petitioner. The complainant refused to oblige them and so he was threatened by the accused persons. It is said that he was kept in confinement in the house of the petitioner for five days during which he was physically and mentally tortured. It appears that complainant was examined on S.A and during enquiry under Sec.202 of the Code five witnesses were examined and the learned Magistrate after being satisfied that there was sufficient material for proceeding further against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147,323,343 and 506 of the IPC took cognizance and ordered to issue summons against them. Against the said order the petitioner has preferred the present application for quashing before this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand learned Counsel for OP No. 2 supported the impugned order and submitted that no interference is required. He submitted that delay in filing the complaint is well explained in the complaint petition.