AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Opposite Party No.2 namely, Bhaglu Safi lodged a
complaint before the SC/ST Police Station, Samastipur on 16.7.2011,
inter alia, stating therein that on 4.7.2011 at about 4 P.M. while he
was going from his house to Badarbanna and had reached near the
mosque behind the culvert in between Badarbanna and Shrirampur,
the petitioners herein surrounded him, whereupon the petitioner no.2
exhorted while abusing the Opposite Party No.2 that this is "Dhobiya
Harijan" who has deposed in a case against him. The said petitioner
no.2 had further exhorted to kill the said ?Dhobiya?, whereafter all the
accused persons tied the hands and legs of the Opposite Party No.2
with a rope and started assaulting the Opposite Party No.2 over his
entire body, resulting in the Opposite party No.2 suffering grave
injuries and blood also started oozing out from his nose and mouth. In
the meantime, the accused persons also snatched money and watch
from the Opposite Party No.2. It is the further contention of the
Opposite Party No.2 that subsequently, the villagers had come there
and had taken him on a cot to the hospital where his condition
deteriorated and then he was taken to the D.M.C.H., Darbhanga where
he was treated and after his condition improved, he has filed the
present complaint.
On the basis of the said complaint of the Opposite
Party No.2 dated 16.7.2011, SC/ST Samastipur P.S. Case No. 29 of
2011 was registered against the petitioners herein under Sections 341,
323, 379, 504 and 506 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under
Sections 3 (i)(x) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
The police had investigated the case and had found the
case true, whereafter a charge sheet dated 25.5.2012 was filed against
the petitioners herein under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian
Penal Code as well as section 3(i)(x) of the Prevention of Atrocities
Act. It appears that the learned trial court has also taken cognizance of
the offences, as alleged, against the petitioners herein. Besides, the
aforesaid facts, the petitioners herein had filed a petition for discharge
under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the
learned court of Additional Sessions Judge- 1st -cum- Special Judge,
Darbhanga in connection with SC/ST Case No. 212 of 2014, however,
the learned trial court has dismissed the said petition by a well
reasoned and judicious order dated 10.9.2014, which is under
challenge in the present proceeding.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that no case is made out against the petitioners herein, which would be
apparent from paragraph nos. 11, 12, 13, 22 and 24 of the case diary.
This Court had called for the case diary of the
aforesaid case and the same has been received, which has also been
perused by this Court.
As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners regarding there being no material in the case diary to
proceed against the petitioners herein is concerned, it is stated that
paragraph-11, 12 and 13 only relate to some of the witnesses while
there are other witnesses, who have been examined by the police and
all of them have supported the alleged occurrence. By referring to
paragraph-22 of the case diary, which contains the supervision note of
the Sub-Divisional Police Officer as well as paragraph-24 of the case
diary, the learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the
aforesaid case has been found to be false and it has been opined to file
a closure report ( final form). It may be relevant to state here that it is
unfortunate on the part of the petitioners to only point out the material
in their favour, however, the fact is that subsequently, in paragraph-26
of the case diary, the Superintendent of Police as well as the Inspector
General of Police have opined that the victim was treated by a Doctor
and the allegations, as levelled against the petitioners, are true hence
the Investigating Officer should again start the investigation.
Thereafter, the matter was re-investigated and the case has been found
to be true, hence the charge sheet dated 25.5.2012 was submitted by
the police.
Therefore, it is apparent that the arguments advanced
on behalf of the petitioners are bereft of any merit and an incorrect
picture has been projected, whereas the fact is that upon re-
investigation, the case was found to be true and only then the charge
sheet was filed.
In any view of the matter, it is a trite law that while
dealing with a quashing petition, the court has ordinarily to proceed
on the basis of the averments in the complaint and the defence of the
accused cannot be considered at that stage and moreover, the court
considering the prayer for quashing, does not adjudicate upon a
disputed question of fact. Reference in this connection be had to the
judgments reported in (2008) 13 SCC 678 [ Suryalakshmi Cotton
Mills Ltd. V. Rajvir Industries Ltd .], (2011) 13 SCC 88 [ Rallis
India Ltd. V. Poduru Vidya Bhushan ], (2015) 11 SCC 776 [ HMT
Watches Ltd. V. M.A. Abida ] and one reported in (2016) 10 SCC
458 [ Sampelly Satyanarayan Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy
Development Agency Ltd .].
I further find from perusal of the record as also the
case diary that there are ample materials on record to prima facie
make out a case against the petitioners herein. The entire materials
also suggest commission of cognizable offence by the petitioners
herein, hence the ongoing criminal prosecution of the petitioners
requires no interference by this Court.
For the reasons stated herein above, there is no merit
in the present petition and the same is dismissed, however, without
any order as to costs.