BIPAD TARAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This quashing application is directed against the order dated 29-7-2002 passed in Case No. C 252 of 2002 whereby and where under the Judicial Magistrate. Ranchi has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 496/323/511/ 34, IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the O.P. complainant Shyam Kishore Prasad filed a case being complaint case No. C252 of 2002 aginst the petitioners under Sections 496/323/306/511/34, IPC alleging there that in between the night of 10-11th April 2002 at about 12 o'clock, son of the complainant Sandip Kumar alias Bobby had left his parents house and had been debarred fom his paternal property and the complainant had no concern with Sandip Kumar alias Bobby and that Nandana Ray alias Naina wanted to marry the son of the complainant, but due to the bad character of the said Nandana Ray alias Naina, Sandip Kumar alias Bobby was not ready to marry her. It was was further alleged that the said Nandana Ray alias Naina convinced her family members that she had married Sandip Kumar alias Bobby, then all the accused persons unitedly entered into a conspiracy and sent a pleader's notice to the complainant alleging therein that Naina had, married Sandip Kujar alias Bobby in the month of August 2001 and they have to accept her as wife of Sandip Kumar alias Bobby. Thereafter, Sandip Kumar alias Bobby relplied to the notice and denied allegation of alleged marriage with Nandana Ray. It is further alleged that on 3-3-2002 accused persons with the help of local police and some anti social elements tried to solemnize the marriage of Sandip Kumar alias Bobby with Nandana Ray alias Naina forcibly and complainant and his family members were taken to Lalpur Police Station. At the Lalpur police station policemen extended threat and torture and gave ill-treatment to the complainant and his family members and policemen forcibly took signature of the complainant and also took signature of his brother-in- law on a blank paper and threatened them to accept Nandana Ray alias Naina as wife of Sandip Kumar alias Bobby, otherwise all of them will be implicated in a false case. It is further alleged that the complainant and his family members got frightened and the accused persons took away Sandip Kumar alias Bobby forcibly with them and complainant had no knowledge about him for two days. Thereafter, accused started visiting the house of the complainant regularly in his presence or even in his absence and used to threaten him and his family members. On two occasions, Nandana Ray and Swati Singh (petitioner No. 5) came to the residence of the complainant and threatened that they have come to live in the house and will implicate him in rape, dowry or other serious cases. On 18-3-2001 at about 8.00 a.m. the accused persons armed with pistol came to the house of the complainant in search of the son of the complainant and threatened to kill his son the same day. It is further alleged that the accused persons have disturbed the whole family to such an extent that they might kill themselves and they have even abetted them in commission of suicide. On 10-4-2004 at about 8.00 a.m. the accused persons tortured the son of the complainant and abetted him in commission of suicide. It is further alleged that at about 12'o clock of 10-4-2002 the son of the complainant took poison and tried to end his life. Thereafter he was taken to Nagarmal Modi Seva Sadan by his friends and was admitted there and he was saved by the Doctors after great effort. Later, the doctor recovered a suicide note from the pocket of the complainant's son in which he directly and voluntarily stated that he was ending his life due to the accused persons.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-accused persons submits that the petitioner-accused persons are innocent and the complainant has made contradictory statement Inasmuch as that on the one hand, he has stated that his son had left the house and on the other hand, he says that he has been debarred from his property and he has no concern with his son and the so called occurrence took place in the house of the complainant O.P. and Sandip Kumar who Is son of the complainant, is the main victim. It is further submitted that there Is general and omnibus type of allegation against the accused persons. It is further submitted that in the whole complaint petition, S.A. and evidence of witnesses, there is no allegation that any injury has been caused and there is only allegation of threatening to keep the accused No.2 Nandana Ray as wife of son of the complainant O.P. No. 2. There is no such statement in the S.A. that the complainant has approached the police for lodging of the F.I.R. On other hand , it has been submitted that Nandana Ray is the legally married wife of the son of the complainant and she has already lodged FIR on 10-5-2002 be fore the lodging of the present complaint case under Sections 3 13/493/498(A)/ 120(B) IPC against the five accused persons including the complainant and the present complaint case has been filed with false allegation by way of revenge. It is further submitted that in course of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. not a single prosecution witness has supported the case and, therefore, the impugned order taking cognizance is bad in law,