LALAN RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS who have been arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 709(C) of 2007 have prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom including the order dated 16.7.2007 passed by Sri R.K. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Buxar, whereby he has taken cognizance of alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 325 and 379/734 IPC.

(2.) ONE Jamwanti Rai, spinster, who has not even been impleaded as a party in this application filed the complaint on 18.6.2007 against 11 petitioners alleging commission of offences under Sections 341 and 307 IPC at their hands, inter alia, on the allegations that she is the unmarried daughter of late Jagdish Rai who left behind valuable property worth crores of rupees in Village - Jalilpur and had two brothers Lalan Rai and Prem Narain Rai who were wasting the parental property and when she remonstrated against their acts of omission and commission they tried to kill her by putting a rope round her neck and attempting to strangulate her, and they even assaulted her with fists as a result whereof her front teeth got displaced and her lips were hurt. It is further stated that somehow she managed to flee and going to the Mukhia narrated the entire story to him but no help was forthcoming since her brothers were very influential persons. She then informed the police through the village Chaukidar but even the police did not come to her help. She alleged that her brothers alongwith their wives and children were not allowing her to enter into her house and she received no help from the co -villagers. Assailing the impugned order the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Lalan Rai and Prem Narain Rai the alleged brothers, to the best of their knowledge, have no elder sister living and from this it would be apparent that some one with avaricious and covetous eyes on the valuable property of their late father had set up this complainant to lodge a false case. The falsity of the case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, would be apparent from the fact that at the age of 56 she was still unmarried and no injury report or evidence with regard to attempt on her life or injury had been produced by her. Grievance has also been raised against the court taking cognizance without looking into the report by the police which had been called for earlier and with regard to the happenings of the case. Grievance has also been raised against impugned order taking cognizance only on the basis of the statement of complainant on S.A. without there being any corroborative evidence in support of the allegations from other witnesses.

(3.) IT is apparent from the perusal of the statement of the complainant on S.A. that she had stated in paragraph 6 that her brothers being influential and haughty persons every soul in the village was afraid of them and none of them were willing to depose against them in Court and as such she could produce no corroborative evidence. To court questions she stated that her father had expired on 3.3.1971 and that she had not filed any case for partition of the properties. She also stated to the court that she had not got herself treated although she did admit that she had informed the police through the village Chaukidar and that the Chaukidar had given oral information to the police.