RAVINDRA PODDAR SON OF PARMESHWAR PODDAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND SATYA NARAYAN GUPTA S/O SHYAM NARAYAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is one of the F.I.R. named accused in Jai Nagar P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, has prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal prosecution arising therefrom including the order dated 24.7.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, whereby he has taken cognizance against all the three accused under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307, 504/34 I.P.C.

(2.) ONE Satya Narayan Gupta, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, submitted a written report on 19.1.2007 before the Officer Incharge, Jai Nagar P.S. inter alia alleging therein that earlier that day at about 8 A.M. as he got started the construction work of increasing the boundary wall of his land, his neighbour Ravindra Poddar, the petitioner herein, alongwith his wife, Shobha Devi, and son, Pankaj Poddar, objected to the construction work and demanded money for the construction work to continue. The informant ignored the demand made by the petitioner whereupon he was abused in filthy language and also assaulted and the amount of Rs. 750/ - which he had kept in his pocket towards expenses for the construction work was snatched away. It is also alleged that the petitioner threatened him with dire consequences for him and the family if all the cases against him were not withdrawn and thereafter he started demolishing the construction work and when the labourers raised objection thereto they started pelting stones and bricks which resulted in injuries to the informant, his family members and the labourers. The informant has further alleged that the accused persons had even on earlier occasions resorted to assault with them for which several cases being Jai Nagar P.S. Case Nos. 123 of 2005, 235 of 2005 and 86 of 2005 have been registered.

(3.) THE assertions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he was in custody from prior to the instant occurrence is not substantiated by any document and even if it is so that would only form part of his defence which can be raised and agitated in course of the trial.