S.K.TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 in spite of repeated calls. Yesterday also, when the case was taken up, no one had appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 in spite of repeated calls. Petitioners have filed this application challenging the order dated 7.8.1999 passed by Sri N. K. Agarwal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 252 of 1997, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners for discharge was rejected by the Court below and it was found that there were sufficient material on record to frame charge against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 323 / 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) FROM perusal of the complaint petition, it is apparent that so far as the allegation of assault is there, it is specific against the co-accused R.N.Vaid, who is not a petitioner in the present case. It is further apparent from perusal of the complaint petition that even the presence of the petitioners were not shown in the complaint petition at the time of assault on the complainant by the said R.N.Vaid. The petitioners have been named in paragraph 2 of the complaint petition, in which, it is alleged that for the aforesaid occurrence, the complainant was eager to lodge the F.I.R in Namkum P.S. for safety of his life, but on the way, he saw the accused petitioners watching him very aggressively and these petitioners are alleged to have threatened the complainant with life if the complainant went to the police station for lodging the F.I.R. So far as the petitioners are concerned, except this allegation, there is no other allegation against them in the complaint petition.

(3.) IN my considered view, on this allegation, no charge could be framed against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 323/120B of the Indian penal Code, as there is nothing on the record to show that these petitioners either conspired with the main accused or had assaulted the complainant. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Court below finding sufficient material for framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 323 /120B of the I.P.C., cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.