Allowed

Anchal Kumar Pandey and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC13 Nov 2014CR. MISC./30207/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed the order taking cognizance under IPC Sections 344, 347/34 by the Buxar Judicial Magistrate, holding that the complaint amounted to mere suspicion and preponderance of apprehension regarding property fraud and custodial harassment, insufficient for criminal cognizance.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 05.05.2011 taking cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Buxar is set aside.

Anchal Kumar Pandey and Ors. Vs State Of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30207 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== 1. Anchal Kumar Pandey, S/o Kanhaiya Pandey 2. Kanhaiya Pandey, S/o Late Sudama Pandey 3. Sita Devi, W/o Anchal Kumar Pandey 4. Hridaya Narain Pandey, S/o Late Sudama Pandey, All resident of Village-Hari Kishanpur, P.S. Buxar, District-Buxar. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Ramayan Singh, S/o Ram Dasarath Singh, resident of Village-Civil Line, P.S. Buxar, District-Buxar. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Rana Ishwar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.1: Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶4

3 13-11-2014 Heard Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kamal Deo Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. The State is being represented by Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶5

The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 05.05.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Buxar in connection with Protest Complaint Case No. 237(C) of 2010, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 344, 347/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶6

The father of the opposite party no.2 is stated to have accompanied the petitioners to Chitrakoot for getting his eye tested. The opposite party no.2 permitted his father to

¶7

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30207 of 2012 (3) dt.13-11-2014

¶8

2/4

¶9

accompany the accused persons as prior to the occurrence he had got a sale-deed executed in the name of his father of a property, which was conveyed by the accused persons. Since the father of opposite party no.2 did not return for quite some time and no satisfactory answer could be given by the accused persons, the opposite party no.2 preferred a First Information Report vide Buxar (Town) P.S. Case No.176 of 2008 dated 19.08.2008, which was instituted for the offence under Sections 364, 367, 368, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

The aforementioned First Information Report was investigated and final report false was submitted by the police. The protest petition, which was on record, was moved by the opposite party no.2. Such an application, after being treated as complaint, was acted upon. In the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, witnesses supported the factum of the prosecution version. Thereafter, by the order impugned, cognizance has been taken under Sections 344, 347/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

A bare perusal of the complaint would show that the opposite party no.2 has not alleged anything apart from the fact that he was under fear that perhaps his father would be done to death after forcing him to sign certain documents relating to

¶12

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30207 of 2012 (3) dt.13-11-2014

¶13

3/4

¶14

property. In the same breath, the opposite party no.2 has alleged that earlier to his father having gone in the company of the accused persons to Chitrakoot, he has got a property transferred in the name of his father from the accused persons. It was under such circumstances that the protest complaint was lodged.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 files a counter affidavit and states that a title suit was filed vide Title Suit No. 285 of 2008, in which there was a decree in favour of opposite party no.2.

¶16

The issue, which was decided in the title suit, is absolutely extraneous to the materials available in the present case. The present complaint is only with respect to having taken away the father of the complainant for some time and further apprehension that such period of confinement, if at all, could be misused for obtaining some property in a fraudulent/deceitful manner. Admittedly, the father of the complainant-opposite party no.2 returned. Which property was conveyed and by what means

¶17

is not the subject matter of the present complaint. In case any property was conveyed by deceitful means at the instance of the accused persons including the petitioners that would have been the subject matter of another case and definitely not the present complaint.

¶18

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30207 of 2012 (3) dt.13-11-2014

¶19

4/4

¶20

Considering the fact that the present complaint was only in the nature of a suspicion and preponderance of the order taking cognizance under Sections 344, 347/34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The order impugned, taking cognizance dated 05.05.2011 passed by the learned, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Buxar in connection with Protest Complaint Case No. 237(C) of 2010, is set aside.

¶21

The application stands allowed.

¶22

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶23

Pawan/-

¶24

U T

Anchal Kumar Pandey and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anchal Kumar Pandey and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krit Prasad @ Ram Krit Prasad and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Noor Hasan Mian @ Noor Hassan Ansari Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Sheo Kumar Sharma and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ram Babu Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Nath Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Vinu Rai Vs the State of Bihar