NARAYAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Md. Javed Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pradeep Narain Kunwar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Bibhuti Prasad Pandey, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party no.2.

(2.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-3rd, Bhagalpur, in Criminal Revision No.220 of 2011 corresponding to T.R. No.50 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the revision application filed by the opposite party no.2 was allowed and the order of dismissal of Complaint Case No.2588 of 2010 passed by the court of learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in Complaint Case No.2588 of 2010, was set aside and the court below was directed to pass a fresh order and further for quashing the consequential order dated 24.08.2012 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in Complaint Case No. 2588 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the petitioners were summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Court.

(3.) The short facts of the case is that on 16.12.2003, a complaint, vide Complaint Case No.729 of 2003, was filed before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate by the opposite party no.2 for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners alleging therein that in the morning, on 01.09.2003, a telephonic call was received by the neighbor of the opposite party no.2 namely, Anil Mandal and said Anil Mandal was asked to call the wife of opposite party no.2. Upon such information, the opposite party no.2 went to the house of said Anil Mandal where she talked to petitioner no.2 Amrendra Sharma, who told her to send her son Ashutosh Mishra to Jamalpur immediately for some urgent work. Thereafter, Ashutosh Mishra went to meet with the petitioner no.2 at Jamalpur and when he did not return home, the opposite party no.2 enquired about his son from the petitioner no.2, who told him that his son had gone to Delhi for job. The opposite party no.2, thereafter, submitted an application before the Officer-in-Charge of Madhusudanpur police station and the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, but, in the meantime, on 13.01.2013, petitioner no.3 Tuntun Sharma came to the house of the opposite party no.2 and demanded a photograph of his son, which was denied by the opposite party no.2 upon which petitioner no.3 told the opposite party no.2 that his son is no more. He also told him to go Jamalpur Rail police station where he would receive all the necessary information. The opposite party no.2 started crying and went to Jamalpur Rail police station where the Officer-in-charge of the police station handed over the inquest report and photograph of the dead body of his son. Then the opposite party no.2 raised a suspicion that all the petitioners, under a planned conspiracy, kidnapped his son and then killed him.