JAGDISH PANDEY Vs. RAMDEO RAI ALIAS RAMDEO AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed against an order dated 1.3.1985 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Patna, by which order he has taken cognizance of the offence under Ss. 418 and 506 I. P. C, and summoned the accused petitioner and another accused to stand their trial. The circumstances leading to this order are not only peculiar (sic) distressing, and if I may say so, at the very outset, a more colossal example of the abuse of the process of the Court could not have been available. The petitioner was a first informant in a case in which the complainant is an accused along with others for an allegedly committed offence under Ss. 307, 325 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code. While this case was being tried In the Court of Vth Assistant Sessions Judge Patna, a transfer petition was filed before the District & Sessions Judge, Patna, for the transfer of that criminal trial being Sessions Trial No. 22/81 by Sakaldeo Pujari (P.W. 4). Surprisingly opposite party in that transfer petition were three persons who were accused in the aforesaid trial along with the petitioner. They are Ramdeo Roy, Lal Babu Roy and Ramashanker Roy who were opposite party 2 to 4. The 1st Opposite party was the State of Bihar. For reasons best known to the petitioner, Sakaldeo Pujari, he had not made the informant a party in that application. Notice was then issued by the learned District & Sessions Judge which was handed over to the process server Tejendra Prasad Singh (P.W. 1).

(2.) The prosecution story hereafter culled out from the complaint petition and the evidence of the witnesses makes interesting reading. The process server is met by Sakaldeo Pujari who is P.W. 4 and the petitioner of the transfer petition as aforesaid. He has deposed that he informed the process server (P.W. 1) that the persons to whom the notices are to be delivered do not live in the address given in the notice . The place where P.W. 4 met the process server is not clearly mentioned. Suddenly, the petitioner manifests himself at the scene, takes away the process server to his house at Boring Canal Road, presents three imposters representing the aforesaid three opposite party, obtains their refusals gets notice pasted at the house of these persons misleading the process server to believe houses to be belonging to the persons to whom notice was to be served and then affixes his signature as an identifying witness along with that of Another accused and all this in the full view of P.W. 4 who watches the drama without interjection. When the complainant came to the Court, he heard of the case being transferred to another Court. On inquiry, he came to know of what had happened behind his back. Quite some time thereafter the complainant met the petitioner in Court and enquired of his act of criminality and mischief. On this, the petitioner is said to have showered abuses on him and threatened him to get him convicted. Then a complaint was filed as I have said above and an inquiry under Sec. 202 Cr. P.C. was held in which five witnesses in all were examined. P.W. 1, as aforesaid, is Tejendra Prasad Singh who is a process server in this case. P.W. 2 in Lal Babu Ram who has denied the receipt of the notice and consequently his refusal. He has said that he is a resident of Rambad and on the fateful day he was at his house and not at Boring Canal Road. P.W. 3. Deo Narain Jha who has supported the case of the complainant about the petitioner's showering abuses on the complainant. P.W. 4 Sakaldeo Pujari is the person who has filed the transfer petition. He has deposed to the entire episode. P.W. 5 Ganesh Roy is the person on whose house the notice was pasted. His further statement is that he has informed the service peon that the three persons on whom the notice was required to be served did not live at the address for the last ten years.

(3.) Two interesting aspects emerge from this statement why the process server did not immediately refrain from proceeding further in the matter and secondly why the P.W. 4 Sakaldeo Pujari furnished an address on which the co -accused have ceased to live for the last ten years. It is well settled, in the light of the several decisions of the Supreme Court one of which was relied on by Mr. Umashanker Prasad, Learned Counsel for the opposite party viz. AIR 1963 SC 1430 (Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and another that while the court issues summonses, it cannot assume the role of a trial court to examine the intrinsic value of the evidence brought on the record in an inquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the statement of the complainant on oath and the complaint. It has got to find that there is sufficient ground for proceeding under Sec. 204 Cr. P.C. Salient features, in my view, which completely destroy the element of sufficiency of grounds are as follows : - -