NARESH MOHAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application at the instance of the five petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the order dated 9-5-94, passed by Shri A. K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, in Complaint Case No. 183(C) 93, whereby cognizance of the alleged offences have been taken under Sections 147, 323, 380, 452 and 504, IPC as well as Section 26 of the Arms Act, and the petitioners have been summoned to stand their trial.

(2.) According to the allegations in the petition of complaint lodged by O. P. No. 2 herein, on 11-8-93 the petitioners had stormed into the house of the complainant, misbehaved with the ladies, taken away valuable articles of the household. A copy of the complaint petition is marked Annexure 1 to the quashing petition. On these allegations,the impugned order of cognizance was passed in the aforesaid manner. Let it be recorded that the petitioners herein are members of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) and were, at the relevant point of time, were posted at Kiul.

(3.) While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present complaint case is really a counter blast to the case started against O.P.No. 2 herein (Arjun Sao), as well as his son Devendra Sao. On 4-8-93, one Pyarelal, a member of the RPF posted at Kiul had submitted a report to the Incharge Inspector, RPF, Jhajha, alleging therein that he had spotted the aforesaid Devendra Sao while stealing railway properties in Kiul Railway Yard. He had, therefore, submitted his report dated 4-8-93 (Annexure 3). On 4-8-93, the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Kiul, had issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against Devendra Sao. A copy of the entire order sheet including that of 4-8-93 is marked Annexure 4 to the quashing petition. Devendra Sao was accordingly arrested on 8-8-93. The statement of the accused Devendra Sao was recorded by one Ram Briksh Singh (petitioner No. 3 herein), with respect to the case started on the basis of the aforesaid report dated 4-8-93 (Annexure 3), wherein he confessed that his father, Arjun Sao, was for the namesake Halwai, but really is engaged in theft of railway properties. He has similarly trained him, Devendra Sao, also. A copy of the said statement of Devendra Sao recorded on 8-8-93 is marked Annexure 5 to the quashing petition.3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that the present prosecution cannot be allowed to continue in view of the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 20(3) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957.