SUKETH SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have moved this court under 5ection 482 of the code of criminal Procedure: and prayed for quashing the order dated 27-2-1998 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, in Sessions. Trial No. G5 of 1996 by which the prayer of the petitioners for discharge has been rejected.

(2.) The aforesaid Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1996 arises out of Barhariya P.S. case No. 92 of 1995 under Sections 448, 323, 354, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the first information report was lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of one Asha Gaddi son of Nathuni Gaddi of Barhariya in the district of Siwan.

(3.) The prosecution case, .in brief, is that on the alleged date of occurrence, the informant was tilling his land, in the meantime his son came running and informed him that all the accused petitioner had come to their house and they are assaulting his mother and trying to take forcible possession of the room in which they were previously a tenant. The informant further alleged that at this information he rushed to his house along with his son and saw that the petitioners were assaulting his wife and they also torn the blouse of his wife. It is alleged that when the informant protested, he was also assaulted by them. The petitioners also snatched silver chain from the neck of his wife. On the basis of that FIR a criminal case was instituted under the aforesaid sections. During investigation the Investigating Officer did not find any material for prosecuting the petitioners under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners case is that petitioner No.2 also filed a complaint case against the 1.0. of the present case and the other police officials of Barhariya Police Station along with the informant and his family members. However after investigation charge under Section 376, I.P.C. was also added against the petitioners. When the case was fixed for framing charge, the petitioner filed an application for their discharge from the alleged offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, who in terms of the impugned order dated 27-2- 1998 rejected the application of the petitioners holding that the prosecution has brought sufficient materials to frame charge under Section 376. I.P.C.