HARBALLAVA CHANDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for quashing the order dated 22 -7 -2002 whereby the learned Court below below has taken cognizance under Sections 323 and 379/341 PC.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief is that O.P. No. 2 Ajay Kumar Sinha filed a complaint petition in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi against the petitioner and two others under Sections 452, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code for occurrence dated 5 -5 -2002 at 3.00 p.m. alleging therein that complainant is the son -in -law of the petitioner and that on 5 -5 -2002 at about 3.00 p.m., petitioner along with two other accused persons in a Maruti Van cam to the house of the complainant and told him that they have come to take the wife and children of the complainant because there was marriage of Saali of the complainant in the house of accused persons. The daughter of the complainant who was aged six years old and was a student of class I in Sacred Heart School, Hulundo had a to appear in the examination on 6 -5 -2002 and as such, the complainant requested the accused -person not to take away his family and promised that they will attend each and every function later on. On this, accused -persons became angry and started abusing the complainant but the complainant requested the accused -persons not to abuse him and also asked them to leave his house, Further case of the complainant is that petitioner and two other accused -persons went away out of his house and again came back with chain in the hands of petitioner, iron rod in the hands of accused No. 2 and tangi in the hands of accused No. 3 and all of a sudden, petitioner assaulted complainant with chain while accused No. 2 assaulted complainant with iron rod on his head causing bleeding injury and accused No. 3 took out Rs. 5,000/ - from the pocket of complainant which was kept for giving presentation to his Saali, Wife and children of the complainant started crying and the neighbours arrived there and saved the complainant while the petitioner and two other accused -persons filed away on their Maruti Van bearing Registration No. BR -14J 4180 and also carried away his wife and children. Complainant with the help of the witnesses was taken to Chuita police station but police did not hear anything because accused -persons were also there. One witness Pradip Kumar took the complainant to Sadar Hospital, Ranchi and six stiches were applied on the head of the complainant next day on 6 -5 -2002. After discharge from the hospital, he again went to the police station but the police refused to take the report and assured the complainant that they will make an inquiry into the matter and then case will be lodged but the police did not come and thereafter, complainant has filed this complaint case and the complaint case was transferred to the Court of Smt. Radha Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi for inquiry and trial and she was pleased to examine the complainant on 3 -6 -2002 and after holding inquiry under Section 202 IPC examined three witnesses and was pleased to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 323 and 379/34 IPC.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submitted that the petitioner is a man of belligerent nature and he is in habit of making unnecessary interference in the happy conjugal life of O.P. No. 2 and due to this very nature, the family life of eldest sister of wife of complainant has become miserable and marriage in between her eldest sister and her husband has been dissolved. Learned Counsel further submitted that inspite of repeated requests, the petitioner did not relent and thereafter, started abusing complainant and ultimately brought weapons and assaulted the complainant. Learned Counsel further submitted that cognizance in the case has been taken after inquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. and there is nothing, which warrants interference of the High Court. In this connection, he placed reliance upon (2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 236, wherein it has been held that trial Court order summoning the accused requires interference by High Court on assumption of certain facts is impermissible. In this connection, Para 4 of the case is quoted herein below: