PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who has been impleaded as one of the accused in Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 60 of 2002, Trial No. 123/2007, seeks the quashing of order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, in Cr. Revision No. 84/2003, whereby he has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 5.3.2003 passed by Sri D.K. Jaiswal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan, whereby he had refused to discharge the petitioner.

(2.) IT appears that on the basis of a fardbeyan given by one Raj Nath Singh, impleaded as O.P. No. 2 herein, the aforesaid P. S. Case was registered under Sections 341, 323, 379/34 and 504 I.P.C. The informant alleged inter alia that on 20.9.2002 when he had gone to the market accused Prakash Singh abused him by taking the name of his father and when the informant protested the petitioner assaulted him by means of bricks as a result thereof the informant sustained injury and thereafter co -accused Pravin Singh took away Rs. 600/ - from the pocket of the informant. The cause of the occurrence is said to be that the informant had constructed a boundary wall by the side of the temple and the accused persons had removed a few of those bricks from the boundary wall. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the investigation the witnesses had stated that there was only scuffle between the informant and the accused and the Court below had observed that the witnesses have not specified the role played by the accused persons and this clearly goes to show that the story propounded by the informant was a concocted one with mala fide intention. It is further sought to be submitted from the injury report it appears that the informant had sustained an abrasion on his legs and such injuries obviously could not have been caused by assault by bricks as has been alleged in the fardbeyan and the learned Court below had erred in not taking into account these facts. It was further sought to be submitted that although the allegation is of the petitioner have been removed 5 -6 bricks from the wall but I.O. in course of his investigation had not found any sign of removal of bricks which clearly falsified the genesis of the occurrence and, therefore, the entire case appears to be a cooked up one. It was also submitted that the parties and it was by reason of such enmity that the informant had concocted a false and vexatious story only to harass the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that there is no any illegality in the order of the Magistrate refusing to discharge the petitioner and the revisional Court had rightly rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order rejecting the petition for discharge.