ISHWAR SINGH Vs. PANNEY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application Under Section 482, Cr. P.C by Ishwar Singh petitioner for setting aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dated September 4, 1982, and for issuing a direction for proper investigation of a case which has been instituted on the complaint of the petitioner.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated as follows: Panney Singh and Suraj Singh non -petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 accompanied by their nephew Pabusingh went to Calcutta and met the petitioner on March 20,1982 and requested the letter to permit them to stay at his residence as they had come on tour to Calcutta, The petitioner readily agreed to allow them to stay at his residence, because they were coming from his village and were known to him. On March 22,1982, the petitioner got up in the morning after sleep and found that both the non -petitioners Nos. and 2 as well as their nephew Pabu Singh had gone away from his house. The petitioner suspected some foul play on account of their sudden disappe arance from his house without even giving him any intimation. He, therefore, searched his house -hold articles and found two leather suit cases missing therefrom. The petitioner raised a hue and cry which attracted Shyam Rathi, and Prabhat who were staying with the petitioner. The neighhours also assembled there and Shri Deepak Das, his next -door neighbour, informed the petitioner that he had seen non -petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 going with two leather suitcases at 4.30 a m.The petitioner, thereupon, immediately rushed to Hawrah railway station in pursuit of the non -petitioners, but the could not trace them out. According to the petitioner the stolen suit case contained gold -ornaments, namely, bracelets weighing about 30 grams, ear -ring weighing about 10 grams, one ladies wrist watch, HMT Supriya, wearing apprails and woollen garments and cash amounting to Rs 1100/ -. The petitioner then made a report to Entalley Police Station and on the next day filed a complaint in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint to police station, Entalley Under Section 156, Cr.P.C. for investigation. The Station House Officer accordingly, registered a criminal case Under Section 380, IPC. and deputed Shri S.K. Ghosh, Sub Inspector to go to Rajasthan and arrest the non petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. Shri S.K. Ghosh visited Rajasthan, arrested the non -petitioners on September 1,1982 and produced them before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, on September 2, 1982 for detaining them in judicial custody till September 2, 1982, so that necessary arrangements be made for their journey to Calcutta under escort.

(3.) I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. M.M. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L.D. Gaur for the non -petitioner No. 1 and Mr. L.S. Udawat, Public Prosecutor. It has been contended before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, committed a grave error in releasing the non -petitioners Nos 1 and 2even without taking bail bonds from them. According to Mr. M.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction or power under the law to pass such order which adversely affected the case of the petitioner, because as a result of the release order passed by the Sessions Judge, stolen property could not be recovered by the investigating -agency in the course of investigation and further chances of recovery of such property have become bleak. In short, the contention of Mr. M.M. Singhvi before me is that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is neither legal, nor proper but an abuse of the process of the court which is liable to be set aside to secure the ends of justice. In support of his contention Mr. M M Singhvi relied upon Dhola v. State 1974 W.N 399.