KUNJ BEHARI SINGH Vs. SHANTI LAL SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case No. 590 CA of 1969, pending in the Court of Shri S.J. Hussain, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea. Petitioner No. 1 is a Sub-Inspector of Police and at the time of the occurrence he was posted at Amour Police station in the district of Purnea. Petitioner No. 2 is a constable and petitioner No. 3 is a chowkidar.

(2.) On 12-9-69, opposite party Shanti Lal Sah filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnea, against the petitioners and one daffadar Jainuddin, making, inter alia, the following allegations. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 Kunj Behari Singh was the Sub-Inspector of Police at Amour Police-station petitioner No. 2 Dwarika Rai was posted as a constable at the said police-station and petitioner No. 3 was the Chowkidar of the complainant's village. The complainant's father had a kirana shop in his village Bagdaha, within the jurisdiction of Amour police-station. On 7-9-69, petitioner No. 2 Dwarika Rai along with petitioner No. 3 and daffadar Jainuddin came to the shop of the complainant's father and told the complainant that the Sub-Inspector of Police (Petitioner No. 1) had asked them to bring the complainant under arrest to the police-station as he was wanted in a dacoity case. The complainant pleaded his innocence and wanted to see if there was any warrant of arrest or any written order for his arrest. He was told that there was a verbal order from petitioner No. 1 to arrest him and to bring him at the police-station. The complainant was illegally arrested and was taken to the police-station. He was kept under a Peepal tree where petitioner No. 1 came at about 7 P.M. The father of the complainant and some other witnesses had also reached the police-station by that time. When petitioner No. 1 arrived he told the complainant's father that the complainant was involved in some dacoity cases. After some time petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have told the complainant's father that if he wanted his son's release, he should pay him a sum of Rs. 2000.00This surprised the complainant's father who requested petitioner No. 1 to release the complainant as he was innocent. Petitioner No. 1 thereafter agreed to release the complainant if he was paid a sum of Rs. 1200.00. The complainant's father had to agree to this illegal demand and paid a sum of Rs. 200.00 to petitioner No. 1 and promised to give the balance amount of Rs. 1000.00 by 10-9-69. The complainant was then allowed to return to his house. On 9-9-69, the complainant along with some others came to Purnea to ascertain as to whether he was actually an accused in any dacoity case. There they learnt that the complainant was not involved in any case. On 10-9-69, the complainant's father went to the police-station to request petitioner No. 1 for some more time and to make further enquiry within that period. Petitioner No. 1 is said to have told him that as his son had gone to Purnea he would now not take the money from him and asked him to surrender the complainant in Court. On 11-9-69, the complainant's father made further enquiries and learnt that the complainant was not wanted in any case. Thus, a complaint was filed against the petitioners for putting them on trial under Sections 342, 349 and 16.1 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation on the same date and the case was sent for enquiry to Shri B.B. Sahay, Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea,

(3.) It may be relevant to state here about the treatment this complaint received at the hands of the Executive Magistrate, Shri B.B. Sahay did not submit any report until 7-10-69 when he was transferred and the enquiry was entrusted to Shri S.P. Sinha, Magistrate, 1st Class. He also did not submit any report until 24-5-71. On 24-5-71,the order sheet mentions that the complainant filed a petition that Shri R.R. Prasad, Magistrate had returned to enquiry as he had been transferred and the enquiry should be entrusted to some other Magistrate. From the order sheet it is not clear as to when Shri S.P. Sinha, to whom the enquiry had been entrusted on 7-10-69, had returned the file and when the same had been entrusted to Shri R.R. Prasad. Be that as it may, the enquiry was entrusted to another Magistrate on 25-5-71. Shri Amar Singh, who also did not submit any report and was transferred. The matter now came to Shri J, Murmu, Magistrate, 1st Class, and received the same treatment when, on 18-2-74, the complainant filed a petition to call for the enquiry from the courts of Shri J. Murmu and summon the accused persons. The records were called for and were received by the learned Sub-divisional Officer on 18-3-74, but without any report. It was at this stage that the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, came into force on the 1st of April, 1974, and the file of the case was received in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, on the 29th July, 1974. Thus, it will be seen that from September, 1969 until March, 1974 this case was made a shuttle-cock between one Executive Magistrate and another who, for reasons best known to them, refused to hold an enquiry against a police officer.