Satyendra Singh @ Satyendra Singh Yadav & Ors vs State of Bihar & Anr

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the cognizance order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate 1stClass, Bhabua at Kaimur in Complaint Case No.72 of 2013, whereby the learned Magistrate finding prima facie case took cognizance

of the offence against the petitioners and other accused persons under Sections 323, 448 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the date of occurrence is said to be of 13.01.2013 but the complaint petition was filed after

inordinate delay on 18.01.2013, without assigning any plausible reason for the aforesaid delay, which creates serious doubt about the prosecution case.

It is further submitted that petitioner no.1-Satyendra Singh alias Satyendra Singh Yadav was not at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence

rather was at Army Headquarter, Secunderabad as is evident from the letter dated 08.03.2014 issued by Lt. Colonel, Headquarter Company, 1 EME

Centre to the Noan Police Station, District Kaimur. It is also submitted that all the witnesses examined on behalf of complainant are his family

members and are interested witnesses.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that plea of alibi taken by the petitioners is a matter of

trial and is not required to be considered at the stage of taking cognizance. So far as the delay in filing the complaint petition is concerned, the opposite

party no.2 has explained the aforesaid delay in his complaint petition itself by stating that immediately after the

incident he informed the Noan Police Station on telephone and the police also arrived at the place of occurrence in the midnight and took a written

complaint from the complainant but he has neither lodged any case nor taken any legal action against the accused persons till 18.01.2013 then he filed

this complaint petition. It is also submitted that merely being the family members the testimonies of the said witnesses is not liable to be discarded out

rightly.

From perusal of the record, it appears that the opposite party no.2 has filed the aforesaid complaint case against the petitioners and others under

Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 382 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 (1) VIII, X & XI of the SC & ST Act

with the case in succinct that at the time of occurrence the opposite party no.2 was taking meal in his house, in the meantime all the accused persons

armed with firearm abruptly intruded into his house and on the call of accused Surendra Singh Yadav to eliminate the complainant accused Satyendra

Singh Yadav pointing the gun on him assaulted on his back by means of leg. When his wife started making protest & hulla all the accused persons

assaulted him by means of leg and fists. In the meantime, locals congregated there and on the

protest made by them accused Satyendra Singh Yadav extended threatening of dire consequences to them. Accused Surendra Singh Yadav forcibly

obtained the signature of the complainant on some blank & written papers and on the protest made by him accused Managal Singh and Ram Ayodhya

Singh assaulted him. All the accused persons damaged his utensils strewn the cereals and accused Bharat Singh took away suit case of complainant

containing documents and cash of Rs.15,000/-. Accused Banarsi Singh also took away the complainant’s wife box containing the apparels and a

golden chain worth Rs.35,000/-. They also extended threatening of dire consequences & their eviction from the property slating them in the name of

their caste. In support of his case the opposite party no.2 examined himself on solemn affirmation and also examined three witnesses.

From perusal of the S.A. of opposite party no.2 and account of the witnesses, it appears that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case

and learned lower Court considering the complaint case, solemn affirmation and the material available on record finding prima facie case has taken

cognizance of the offence against all the accused persons including the petitioners under Sections 323, 448 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code by the

impugned order.

So far as the delay in filing the complaint case is concerned, the opposite party no.2 has explained the aforesaid delay in his complaint petition itself by

stating that he had already given information of the occurrence to the P.S. on telephone and police had arrived his house in the midnight of the

occurrence and obtained the complaint petition from him but the police neither lodged any case nor took any action against the accused persons then

he filed this case, which in my considered opinion appears to be convincing and appreciable.

The second contention of the petitioners is that the petitioner-Satyendra Singh Yadav was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of

occurrence rather was at the Army Headquarter at Secunderabad and they also filed letter of Lt. Colonel in buttress of their aforesaid contention but,

in my considered opinion, the defence of alibi is not required to be considered at the time of taking cognizance rather at the trial. So far as the third

ground taken by the petitioners is concerned it is settled principle of law that the testimonies of the family members or interested witnesses is not

required to be discarded out rightly rather it should be scanned and scrutinized cautiously. On perusing the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, I do

not find any vital and material contradiction or inconsistency in their testimony having potential to discard their aforesaid testimonies out rightly at the

threshold.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order warranting the quashing of the same and

this application is shorn of merit and is dismissed accordingly.