BIR BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two of the named accused of Complaint Case No. 149 of 2001, Tr. No. 1877/2002, have preferred this application for quashing of the order dated 15.3.2002 passed therein by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, whereby he directed for issuance of summons to the accused persons on a finding that a prima facie case under Sections 448, 365/34 I.P.C. was made out against them.

(2.) Raj Kumari Devi, the complainant's case in brief is that she along with her husband and children live in the quarters of Samastipur Sugar Mills where her husband had been employed but as the Mill lay closed for the past several years, her husband ordinarily stayed at the village home and her two sons were under the employment of Shambhu Nath Upadhyay son Akhilesh in the telephone booth of Shambhu Nath since January, 2000 and son Amaresh in the readymade garment shop at Dalsingsarai. It is alleged that since wages were not being paid to the sons, Akhilesh and Amaresh demanding Rs. 22,375/- and Rs. 40,200/- respectively by way of outstanding wages moved the Labour Court at Samastipur on 20.7.2001 against Shambhu Nath Upadhyay. It is said that a close friendship exists between accused Bir Bahadur Singh, Nirmal Singh, Samiul Haque and Shambhu Nath Upadhyay and there were litigations between Bir Bahadur Singh and the complainant and by reason thereof and the cases in the Labour Court, the two sons were got falsely implicated in Samastipur (town) P.S. Case No. 265 of 2001 on 24.07.2001 and sent to jail. However, as Amaresh was bailed out on 11.10.2001, on the night of 21.10.2001 at about 10 P.M. while the complainant was having her meals with Amaresh and her daughter, there were knockings on the door. On opening the door, the complainant saw a police jeep parked outside and the accused persons standing near it. Immediately A.S.I. Samiul Haque and S.I. Nirmal Singh allegedly entered into the room caught hold of Amaresh and took him away after advancing threat that should the complainant create any disturbance at night, the son would be shot dead.

(3.) The further case of the complainant is that when she went to the police station in the morning to meet her son, he was not found there and upon queries being made she learnt that Amaresh had not been brought to the police station that night. It is said that when she raise protest with the police personnel available there she was scolded and snooted away. She then reportedly went to the S.P. but was not permitted to meet him. The complainant-was sanguine in her mind that it were the accused persons, being friends, under a conspiracy had kidnapped her son as a retailatory measure to the court cases regarding wages and the litigation with the complainant.