NARAYAN DAS Vs. GULZAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the order dated 11-3-1987, passed by Shri R. Narain, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosara at Samastipur, in C. R. No. 26/87, whereby the learned Magistrate refused to take any action against the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 on the complaint filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The relevant facts are that a petition of complaint was filed by the petitioner on 16-1-1987 arraying the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 as the accused persons, before the Sab-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosara at Samastipur for the offences under Sections 302, 202 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the petition of complaint that opposite party No. 6-Bina Devi, wife of Kari Das, who was brother of the petitioner, was of a lady of loose character and she never used to live in the village of the petitioner peacefully. Since last one and half years she was living at her father's place and persons of her father's place were not allowing her to be taken to the house of the petitioner's brother, i. e., at her husband's place. Due to this the brother of the petitioner did not use to go to his Sasural, i. e., father-in-law's place. A few months back from the date of occurrence, the Sala (brother-in-law) of Kari Das had taken Rs. 6,000 from the brother of the petitioner for purchasing land and had agreed to refund the money soon. On 4-1-1987 opposite party No. 1 Gulzar Das, along with opposite party No. 2 Ram Charitra Yadav had come to the house of the petitioner. Opposite party No. 1 Gulzar Das requested his brother, namely, Kari Das to accompany them to their village Sakara, saying that he would return Rs. 6,000, which he had arranged for him and will also allow his sister to come to his (Kari Das) place Kari Das, brother of the petitioner, along with opposite party No. 1 Gulzar Das and opposite party No. 2 Ram Charitra Yadav went to village Sakara on 4-1-1987 at 1 p. in. saying that he would return by tomorrow evening. When Kari Das, brother of the petitioner, did not return till the night of 6-1-1987, on 7-1-1987 the petitioner went to village Sakara to call his brother. There at Sakara, opposite party No. 1 Gulzar Das, opposite party No. 3 Ramdhani Yadav and opposite party No. 6 Bina Devi told the petitioner that his brother had returned to his own village on 6-1-1987 after taking the money. The petitioner grew suspicious and, therefore, he made enquiry from the villagers of village Sakara about his brother and there he came to know that his brother Kari Das had been murdered by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 on 6-1-1987 in the night. It was further disclosed to him that opposite party No. 6-Bina Devi had given birth to an illegitimate child for which there had been a quarrel between opposite party No. 6 and the brother of the petitioner. Besides, Kari Das, the brother of the petitioner, had also quarrel with other accused persons for money as well. The petitioner tried to search out his brother, but came to know that the dead body of the brother of the petitioner had been thrown in river Gandak. In the early morning, one cot was found near Ramauladhala. Thefeafter, the petitioner went to Garhpura Police Station to lodge a case but the officer-in-charge of Garhpura Police Station refused to institute the case on his statement and directed the petitioner first to trace out the dead body, then any case will be entertained. Thereafter, the petitioner went to Bakhari and sent information to the Superintendent of Police and the Collector, Begusarai, by telegram. On 8-1-1987, the petitioner went to the Superintentendent of Police along with one Sikandar Yadav with-a written complaint, who directed to meet the Dy. S. P. in this connection. While the petitioner and Sikandar Yadav were narrating about the incident to the Dy. S. P., officer-in-charge of Garhpura Police Station reached there and took this petitioner as well as Sikandar Yadav on a Jeep to Garhpura Police Station, where the petitioner wanted to lodge information regarding the murder of his brother. The officer-in-charge thereafter assaulted this petitioner and Sikandar Yadav and kept them in Police lock up.

(3.) It has further been alleged in the petition of complaint that opposite Party No. 6 Bina Devi, being threatened and under promise in order to save the accused persons, instituted a false case, Sikandar Yadav was kept in police hajat for two days and on 10-1-1987 Sikandar Yadav was taken to Begusarai on a Jeep. The petitioner was also kept in thana hajat from 8-1-1987 to 12-1-1987 and there he was assaulted and threatened to depose in the aforesaid false and concocted case filed by opposite party No. 6 Bina Devi, On the same date, i. e., on 12-1-1987 at 8 a.m. in the morning, opposite party No. 6 Bina Devi and others were called at the police station and along with them the petitioner was also taken to Begusarai Court on a Jeep. This petitioner along with opposite party No. 6 Bina Devi and others were produced in the court of Shri T. K. Sah, Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, for making statement but their statement could not be recorded for want of time. The petitioner was again taken back to Garhpura Police Station and kept him inside Hajat. In the next morning, i. e., on 13-1-1987 left thumb-impression of the petitioner was taken on two blank papers by the police and the petitioner was let off with a direction to come to Begusarai Court on 15-1-1987. On 14-1-1987 the court was closed. Therefore the complainant came to' Samastipur on 15-1-1987. Since the train had reached late on that date and it took sometime in drafting and typing the complaint, the complaint was being filed on 16-1-1987. It has also been alleged in the complaint that the petitioner did not go to Hasanpur Police Station due to fear of Shree Pandit, the officer-in-charge of Garhpura Police Station and hence the complaint was being filed in the Court.