SHOBHIT RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application for quashing is directed against order dated 14.3.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 2006 whereby he has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and has directed them to be physically present in court for framing of charges under Sections 147, 447,341,323,436 I.P.C.

(2.) ON the basis of a written report submitted by one Kamal Rai impleaded as O.P. No. 2, herein, Hajipur(Sadar) P.S. Case No. 232 of 2002 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 447, 341, 323, 436/34 I.P.C. on the allegation that his pattidar, Shobhit Rai(petitioner No. 1 herein) was always given to quarrelling over the informant not vacating the land allegedly encroached upon by him till such time that measurements thereof was done. It is said that on this score threats were extended by the said Shobhit Rai for which a sanah was lodged. It is alleged that at about 9.30 P.M. on 19.6.2002 all the accused persons variously armed with lathi, bhala, farsa and jerrycans of kerosene oil came to the darwaza of the informant and ordered him to vacate the said lands and on remonstration by the informant he was allegedly assaulted with lathi and sonta and when his cousins, Ashraf Rai and Suraj Rai, rushed to his rescue, they too were assaulted. It is further alleged that thereafter, on the orders of Shobhit Rai, Rambabu Rai sprinkled kerosene oil on the house of the informant and Harbansh Rai set fire thereto as a result whereof all the goods and articles stored therein as also the house itself was reduced to ashes.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that from perusal of the records it would be apparent that no case at all had been made out against the petitioners and they were being sought to be falsely prosecuted by their pattidar only for illegal gains and with ulterior motive due regard being had to the existence of land disputes between them. The falsity of the case was sought to be emphasized by reference to the police investigation in course whereof it was found that the place of occurrence was not the house of the informant but his palani. Grievance was also sought to be raised against the trial Judge for not having taken heed of the compromise petition having been filed.