Aman Prit Singh vs The State of Bihar and Raj Kumar

Abhijit Sinha, J.—The petitioner, who is one of the F.I.R. named accused of Complaint Case No. 850(C) of 2007, has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 28.8.2007 passed therein by Sri C.M. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 347 and 384 I.P.C.

It appears that one Raj Kumar, the complainant, impleaded herein as Opp. Party No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint inter alia stating that the accused were known to him from before and as he was going to Ranchi in connection with a case pending there, the accused persons called him to Patna to settle the dispute and the complainant believing their assurances came to Patna along with one Shashi Bhushan. It is alleged that on 19.8.2007 the complainant arrived in time at the pre-arranged meeting place, from where the accused took him on a taxi and enroute they requested the complainant to manage the case pending at Ranchi against co-accused Atul Nagpal, being Case No. 45(C) of 2002, for offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. and in view of Atul absconding process u/s 82-83 Cr.P.C. had been issued and when the complainant expressed his inability to make arrangement, he was taken to a lonely place, where he was abused, insulted and assaulted and putting him in fear at the point of pistol, the accused took his signature on three blank-sheets of paper, snatched his wrist watch and took away cash worth Rs. 5000/- and his suitcase. It is also alleged that his witness, Shashi Bhushan, was similarly assaulted, abused and was put in fear of death or causing grievous injury. It is further alleged that the complainant in wrongful confinement was taken to a secret place and after having been threatened with dire consequences, if he reported the matter and dropping him went away. On enquiry, he being the complainant, came to know that he had been dropped at Gola Road at a little distance from New Bailey Road. The complainant claims to have gone to the local Police Station but when no case was registered, he visited the office of the Sub Divisional Police Officer without any success. Hence the complaint.

It appears that following an enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. wherein the statement of the complainant on S.A. was recorded and the evidence of his witness, Shashi Bhushan, was also recorded, cognizance was taken under Sections 323, 347 and 384 I.P.C. and summons were issued u/s 204 Cr.P.C.

Assailing the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the petitioner denied the offences attributed to him as false and frivolous and that the said complaint case had been filed with the intention of pressurizing him. The falsity and improbability of the case, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, would be apparent from the fact that the complainant as per the allegations was called all the way from Punjab to come to Patna for settling the dispute pending at Ranchi. In this connection, it is submitted that a money claim was pending between the complainant and co-accused Atul Nagpal and it was only thereafter that the instant complaint came to be filed.

A perusal of the complaint clearly indicates the absurdity of the prosecution case and no person in his senses could accept the story sought to be propounded by the complainant.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to pass any order which appears necessary to be passed in the ends of justice or which is required to be passed so as to curtail the abuse of the process of the court and where the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case, the court shall be at liberty to quash the same.

The story propounded by the complainant is highly improbable and not in the least conceivable.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order, so far as against the petitioner is concerned, is hereby set aside and the application is allowed.