SATISH KUMAR TIWARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is for quashing the order dated 16.3.2005 passed in T.R. Case No. 132 of 2005 pending in the court of Shri M.C. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder, he took cognizance against the accused -petitioners under sections 109, 120B and 330 of the IPC and directed the office for issuance of summons.

(2.) IT is submitted that the allegations made in the complaint petition read with the statement of complainant on S.A. as well as the statement of witnesses examined under section 202 of the Cr.P. C., even if accepted, do not constitute any offence against the petitioners under section 109, 120B and 330 of the IPC. It is submitted that in the entire complaint petition as well as the statements of witnesses there is no allegation that these petitioners at any point of time abetted the police for torturing the complainant. Hence the offences under section 109, 120B and 330 of the IPC is not made out against these petitioners.

(3.) HAVING heard the submission, I have gone through the records of the case. Admittedly the learned court below took cognizance against these petitioners U/s 109, 120B and 330 of the IPC on the conclusion that they had abetted the police authority for torturing the complainant. It is also an admitted position that the O.P. No. 2 is an accused in connection with Sadar ( Mofassil) P.S. Case No. 381 of 2000 instituted against unknown U/s.395 of the IPC on the information of Petitioner No. 1. It is alleged that at subsequent stage petitioner no. 1 took the name of complainant/ O.P. No. 2 as an accused in the aforesaid case u/s 395 IPC. It further appears that on the basis of said disclosure of petitioner no. 1, O.P. No. 2 arrested from Bandgaon. It alleged that after arrest O.P. No. 2 was tortured by the police in lockup. But from perusal of entire complaint petition, I find that there is no whisper in it to show that the petitioners at any point of time had met police authority and request them to torture the complainant/ O.P. No. 2. The complainant who had been examined in this case on S.A. had not stated that he had been tortured by the police on being abetted by these petitioners. The other witnesses, who were examined during inquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C., had also not stated so rather one of the witness, namely, Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam had specifically stated that these petitioners are not directly involved in torture of the complainant. In my view only because at subsequent stage petitioner no. 1 took the name of O.P. No. 2 as an accused in aforesaid case u/s 395 IPC, it can not be presumed that petitioners had abetted the police to torture O.P. No. 2.