The Patna High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of a complaint case and the order taking cognizance. The court held that allegations of criminal intent and illegal confinement discloses a cognizable offence and do not warrant quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Petition dismissed; no order as to costs passed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.32833 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1954 Year- 2013 Thana -GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District- GAYA
=========================================================== Chanchal Kumar son of Mahanand Prasad, resident of village Sonepur, P.S. Belaganj, District Gaya, at present resident of village-Nadiyawan, P.S. Kako, District Jehanabad.
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Yotgendra Prasad, Adv.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-08-2017
The present matter arises out of Complaint Case No. 1954 of 2013, filed by the Opposite Party No.2 against the petitioner herein (Accused No.3) and other accused persons, inter alia, alleging therein that as far as the petitioner herein is concerned, he is “Mausera Devar” (cousin brother of the husband of the Opposite Party No.2). It has been stated in the complaint petition that the accused Rajeev Kumar used to state that he would arrange for employment in some private institution for her. It has been further alleged that the accused persons had taken her into confidence and told her to come with them so that she could be provided employment, hence, she had concealed this fact from her husband, however, she persuaded her husband to come along
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32833 of 2014 dt.11-08-2017
2/5
with her for going to her parents home. At Jehanabad station, on the pretext of taking ticket, she went away with accused Rajeev Kumar, Deepak Kumar Giri and Chanchal Kumar, whereafter the said accused persons took the Opposite Party No.2 on a Bolero Jeep.
2 . It is further stated in the complaint petition that the Opposite Party No.2 was kept by the said accused persons at Jehanabad for 8-10 days on the pretext of getting her employed. Thereafter, the accused persons had taken her to Patna and kept her at the house of the bother of the accused Deepak Kumar Giri. Thereafter, the accused persons brought the Opposite Party No.2 at the Railway station where the accused Rajeev Kumar and Chanchal Kumar told her to give them her ornaments and when she is employed, they would return back the ornaments. The Opposite Party No.2 was then sent to Haryana along with the accused Deepak Kumar where the accused Deepak Kumar engaged in sexual abuse with the Opposite Party No.2, after giving her medicines and also kept her confined in a house. She was also beaten by the said Deepak Kumar Giri and was also not given mobile phone. After about two months, when Deepak Kumar Giri came to Jehanabad, after leaving the Opposite Party No.2 at Haryana, the Opposite Party No.2 gave information about the entire incident to the Railway Police Officer-in-charge, however, the Railway Police took her to her in-laws place in the night of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32833 of 2014 dt.11-08-2017
3/5
25.09.2013 at about 7/30 P.M.. Since the case was not registered either by the Railway Police or by the local police, she filed the connected complaint case.
3 . The learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya, by an order dated 14.04.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 1954 of 2013, has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 498 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid order dated 14.04.2014 has been assailed by the petitioner in the present application.
4 . The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the Opposite Party No.2 had instituted a complaint case bearing No. 2 of 2013 dated 20.08.2013 leading to registration of the F.I.R.. bearing Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 53 of 2013 dated 04.11.2013 against Deepak Kumar. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 53 of 2013, the police has submitted final report on 15.03.2014 wherein Sri Rajeev Kumar and Chanchal Kumar, i.e. the petitioner herein, have been found innocent, however, charge sheet has been submitted against the FIR named accused person, namely, Deepak Kumar for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
5 . The learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that a bare perusal of the Complaint case as also the order
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32833 of 2014 dt.11-08-2017
4/5
taking cognizance would show that a cognizable offence is definitely made out as against the petitioner herein, hence the said complaint case is not liable to be quashed.
6 . Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I find that if the allegations made in the complaint petition are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same definitely discloses commission of a cognizable offence as well as constitute a cognizable offence, hence, the present case is not a case where exercise of the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.c. is warranted. Another aspect of the matter is that the Opposite Party No.2 has made specific allegations of illegal and wrongful confinement as well as enticing her away with criminal intent, hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, has rightly found the connected complaint case to be a fit case for taking cognizance under Sections 342, 498 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
7 . I may hasten to add that the present case does not fall within the ambit of the guideline laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 336 , hence does not warrant quashing of either the complaint case or for that matter the order taking cognizance dated 14.04.2014.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32833 of 2014 dt.11-08-2017
5/5
8 . For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the present
petition. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
9 . However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
BTiwary/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAVDATE | 09-08-2017 |
| UploadingDate | 10-08-2017 |
| Transmission Date |
10-08-2017 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint case alleging offending should be quashed in view of the allegations made
Whether the case falls within the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal for quashing of proceedings
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 336Distinguished¶26
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chanchal Kumar
State of Bihar
Shobha Devi
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
