RAM DAYAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who have been made to figure as accused in Complaint Case No. 561(C) of 2006 have prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom including the order dated 22.8.2006 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, whereby he, on perusal of the complaint, the statement on S.A. of the complainant, medical report and evidence of witness No. 1, forwarded the complaint to the Chhatarpur P.S. for investigation on the ground that prima facie the case was of serious nature.

(2.) THE complainant, one Sumitra Devi, aged about 32 years, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint on 22.8.2006 inter alia alleging the commission of offences under Sections 323, 379, 427, 376, 120B I.P.C. at the hands of the accused persons at about 6.30 P.M. on 20.8.2006. It is said that on receiving information from one Bindu Sharma that the accused were grazing their cattle upon her lands she hastened to the fields in question and found accused Ram Bilas Yadav, Santosh Yadavand Phulo Yadav present there with their cattle and that about 2 kathas of paddy seedlings had been destroyed by the cattle. When she raised protest, accused Ram Dayal Yadav standing nearby gave out that although he had told her to give up her lands to him and she had not done so, he would not permit any crops to be grown on the same. It is alleged that when she started driving away the cattle, Ram Dayal gave orders to catch hold of her, drag her to the patua fields and rape her so that she would be ostracized in the village. It is further alleged that following the orders accused Satish Yadav and Ram Bilas Yadav catching hold of the complainant dragged her to the patua fields and divesting/her of her clothes the accused persons took turns to rape her and in course thereof accused Tapeshwar Yadav took away her silver necklace worth Rs. 1500/ -. It is also alleged that while departing the accused persons again threatened her that if she did not handover her lands to them then she would not be permitted to live in peace. It is said that as the weeping complainant was returning to her home enroute she met Dev Narayan Mandal and Pramod Sharma to whom she narrated the incident and on the following day a panchavati was arranged by the villagers which the accused persons refused to attend. Hence the complaint.

(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that from a bare perusal of the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on S.A. and evidence of witness No. 1, it would be evident that there is dispute between the parties over selling of landed property and it was as, a result of this enmity that the petitioners were sought to be implicated in a concocted case. It was also sought to be submitted that even otherwise the story propounded by the complainant appears to be unbelievable since petitioner Nos. l to 3 are full brothers and petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 were the sons of petitioner No. l and they could not have committed rape of the complainant in the presence of each other. The learned Counsel also submitted that the order dated 23.4.2007 displayed a complete non application of mind by the learned Magistrate since once having started an enquiry he could not have ordered for a fresh inquiry by the police and the same amounts to a denial of prompt justice. The learned Counsel has also raised a grievance of the husband, gotni, mother -in -law and other family members of the complainant not figuring as witnesses.