RAMJI PRASAD KESHARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these two applications have been filed challenging the order of cognizance and the criminal prosecution relating to the same occurrence, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) BY these applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders dated 18.12.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chatra in Complaint Case No.56 of 2006 and Complaint Case No.63 of 2006 whereby cognizance for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 427, 504, 379 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.

(3.) FROM the record it appears that in the year 2003, the complainant was prosecuted under Section 307/34 and 498A/34 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for the atrocities committed and in Sessions Trial No.100 of 2003, the complainant was convicted by the Sessions Court in terms of judgment dated 02.5.2005 and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 498 -A I.P.C. The complainant, accordingly, completed the sentence and was finally released on 18.1.2006. Although, the occurrence allegedly had taken place between 13.2.2003 to 15.2.2003, but no complaint petition was filed or First Information Report was lodged before 24.2.2003 when the complainant was taken into custody. It was only after release, the complaint cases were filed alleging that the occurrence took place three years back. Besides the above, no specific allegations have been made against the accused persons in the complaint petitions, rather only omnibus allegations have been made. Taking into consideration all these facts of the case, prima facie, it appears that lodging of the complaint and making allegations after he was released from custody are nothing but a retaliation and an abuse of the process of law. These aspects of the matter have not been considered by the Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offence and passing the impugned orders. The impugned orders of taking cognizance, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.