BIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.7.1991 passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in C.P. Case No. 241 of 1990, whereby, on the basis of complaint, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statements of the witnesses examined at the inquiry stage, the prima facie offence under Ss. 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code was found against the petitioner and the other co -accused persons. The petitioner has also challenged the entire criminal proceeding in the said C.P. Case No. 241 of 1990.

(2.) The complaint petition has been brought on record as Annexure -1, which shows that there is allegation against the petitioner, being a Forester, and the other accused persons, being the Forest Guards to have forcibly taken away the truck, bearing registration No. WMH -8720, after scolding and assaulting the complainant by fists and slaps, who was the driver of the said truck. Stating that the truck was a commercial vehicle and by the action of the accused persons, the owner as well as the complainant had suffered loss, the complaint case was filed. The statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation, in which, the complainant supported the case and it appears that some witnesses were also examined by the complainant in the inquiry stage, on the basis of which, the prima facie offence was found against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 11.7.1991, passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner who was one of the accused, and has been described in the complaint petition as a Forester, has filed the present application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against him. It also appears from the record that notice was issued to the complainant -opposite party No. 2, but in spite of several notices sent to him, the same could not be served upon him and the service reports show that the complainant was not available at the address given by him in the complaint petition. The dasti summon was also issued and the service report has been brought on record with the same endorsement that he was not found at the address given in the complaint petition and the service report is also witnessed by two local witnesses.