Rekha Devi, Ashok Singh and Sonapati Devi vs The State of Bihar and Suman Devi

Abhijit Sinha, J.—This application at the instance of three of the purported accused of Manjhi P.S. Case No. 6 of 2003, is for the quashing of the order dated 19.1.2003, whereby processes u/s 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued against them.

It appears that on the basis of a written report submitted before the Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra, in respect of the murder of her son, Manu alias Pankaj Kumar, aged about 7 years, by one Suman Devi, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, on 19.1.2003 the aforesaid police case came to be registered under Sections 302 and 201/34 I.P.C. According to the informant her marriage with one Ajit Kumar Singh, was solemnized in the month of June, 1994 and from the wedlock a son Manu Singh was born. It is alleged that Ajit Singh and his family members tortured the informant for non fulfillment of the dowry demand of a motorcycle and on 18.5.2000 they having assaulted her and confiscated all her belongings and taking the minor son in custody ousted the informant from the matrimonial home. It is stated that for the situation that had arisen the informant filed a Complaint Case No. 859 of 2000 against the husband and others before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate which resulted in Manjhi P.S. Case No. 120 of 2000 and was pending investigation. It is also stated that as Ajit Singh had been taken into custody in another case relating to theft, he was remanded in the said Manjhi P.S. case and eventually was enlarged on bail in March, 2002 by the High Court but the other co-accused allegedly were still absconding.

It is further stated that from a news item published in the daily newspaper "Prabhat Khabar" of 29.9.2002, the informant came to know that her husband had lodged a complaint against her father, Nirsu Narayan Singh, for the alleged kidnapping of her minor son, Manu, which was pending inquiry. Having obtained a certified copy of the complaint petition and on perusal of the same, it appeared that a false case had been filed against her father as the right side of her father''s body was completely paralyzed. Nevertheless, her father alongwith co-villagers went to Tajpur Phulwariya where Ajit resided and made inquiries from several persons who have been named in the written report and came to know that an intoxicated Ajit had brutally assaulted Manu resultant whereof he had fainted and eventually died on 28.9.2002 and Ajit and his family members having surreptitiously hidden the dead body to cause disappearance of evidence of the offence to screen themselves and also to save their own skin had filed Complaint Case No. 2134 of 2002 on false allegations.

Assailing the impugned, order, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are not named in the F.I.R. and are absolutely innocent. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 is the Phua and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the grand parents of Manu and have been falsely implicated in this case in connivance with (he police. It is also submitted that petitioner No. 1 having been married lived in her sasural in the district of Siwan. It is also submitted that prior to the filing of the instant case, Ajit Kumar Singh, the father of the victim, had filed a Compliant Case No. 2134 of 2002 for kidnapping of his son against one, B.K. Jha, the A.S.I, of Manjhi P.S. and Nirsu Narayan Singh, his father-in-law, and due to this enmity the present case had been filed as a counter blast. It was further submitted that in Complaint Case No. 2134 of 2002 cognizance had been taken on 17.4.2003 and the trial had started. It is also submitted that even prior thereto petitioner No. 2 had filed a complaint before the Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, against B.K. Jha, the A.S.I, of Manjhi P.S. which was registered as Case Nos. 3466/4/2000-2001 and 1242/4/2001-2002 and the Human Rights Commission had sent information to the Superintendent of Police , Saran which had resulted in the A.S.I. becoming inimical to the petitioners and taking advantage of the situation had planned and kidnapped Manu with the help of Nirsu Narayan Singh and had falsely implicated petitioner No. 2 and his family members. The falsity of the case would be apparent from the fact that the instant case came to be filed 5 months after the filing of Complaint Case No. 2134 of 2002.

It was further submitted that in course of investigation of the instant case, none of the independent witnesses had stated anything about the occurrence. Finally, it was submitted that the father of the victim Ajit Kumar Singh was put on trial vide Sessions Trial No. 616 of 2003 and was acquitted by Judgment dated 12.7.2007 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, as the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused. On this premise it was submitted that no gainful purpose would be served by forcing these petitioners to appear in court and face the trial.

The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners apparently happen to be their defence which cannot be looked into in a proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. To the contrary, as would appear from the order dated 3.1.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, that notwithstanding the valid service of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. the petitioners had failed to appear before the court and it was on a petition filed by the Investigating Officer that processes u/s 83 Cr.P.C. was directed to be issued.

Admittedly, Manjhi P.S. Case No. 6 of 2003 was registered on 19.1.2003 against Ajit Kumar Singh and his other family members and as would appear in course of investigation the names of these petitioners cropped up as the other members of Ajit Singh''s family. It would also appear that the petitioners had willfully avoided appearing in court notwithstanding the execution of processes u/s 82 Cr.P.C. and they still continue to avoid appearing in the court.

When processes under Sections 82 and 83 have been issued by the court, it must have been after summons had been issued at the initial stage and notwithstanding the same the petitioners avoided appearing in court in open and deliberate affront to the court. Their action and conduct cannot be appreciated. They could have appeared in court and prayed for bail on the very grounds that they have submitted before me by their learned counsel. The fact that the main accused Ajit Singh was acquitted in the Sessions Trial does not mitigate the case of the petitioner.

In the facts and the circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.