Patna High Court - Orders
Ramji Singh Yadav & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 15 January, 2018
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.3444 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -5 Year- 2016 Thana -COM PLAINT CASE District- KISANGANJ
======================================================
1. Ramji Singh Yadav, S/o Kailash Singh Yadav,
2. Ramashankar Singh S/o Mudrika Singh, Both R/o Village- Kopwoan,
P.S.- Dumraon, District- Buxar.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Soni Devi W/o Balmiki Mochi, R/o Village- Rekeiya, P.S.- Dulhin
Bazar, Paliganj, District- Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 15-01-2018Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
The appellants are accused in SC/ST Complaint Case No.5-C of 2016 wherein, by the impugned order dated 18.10.2016, contained in Annexure-3, the learned Court-below directed issuance of process against the appellants, after inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., to face trial for the offences under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(e)(r)(s)(w)/2(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The complaint case was filed by Soni Devi, respondent No.2, alleging therein that she is a member of scheduled caste. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3444 o f 2017 (4) dt.15-01-2018 P/ 2 The three accused persons named in the complaint petition induced her to go with them to Kishanganj for some job at Kishanganj Medical College. On 29.08.2016, the accused persons brought the complainant to Kishanganj and stayed in a room thereat. The accused persons attempted to commit rape against her and thereafter abused and assaulted her by taking caste name.
The statement of the complainant on oath was recorded on 31.08.2016 wherein she supported the aforesaid allegation. Thereafter, the issuance of process against the appellants was postponed and the learned Special Judge conducted inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of witnesses Manbodh Kumar, who stated that the complaint had disclosed the aforesaid occurrence before him. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed.
The challenge is on the ground that the complainant is resident of Patna. The occurrence allegedly took place at Kishanganj. The appellants are also resident of Patna. Therefore, the complaint before the Special Court under SC/ST Act at Kishanganj is not maintainable. He further submits that though complaint petition would reveal that on alarm several witnesses of the vicinity reached there but none of those witnesses have been examined in this case. One more ground is that appellant Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3444 o f 2017 (4) dt.15-01-2018 P/ 3 Ramashankar Singh had filed Dumrao P.S. Case No.192 of 2005 against Dadan Pahalwan @ Dadan Yadav and others. Hence, by way of retaliation at the instance of Dadan Pahalwan, the present false case has been filed.
Law is well settled that the order of issuance of process can be interfered with only when there is no material disclosing the ingredients of the offences alleged. In the present case, the complaint petition discloses the commission of criminal act against the complainant by the named persons including the appellants.
I do not find any merit in the submission that there is non-compliance of the requirement of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. In fact, the learned Special Judge has complied the aforesaid provision substantially inasmuch as after perusal of the complaint petition he could have straightway issued the process against the appellants, which the Court-below did not resort rather postponed the issuance of process after cognizance and decided to enquire the matter under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
Similarly, there is no substance in the submission that Kishanganj Court has no jurisdiction for the reason that neither the complainant nor the accused is resident of Kishanganj. Section 177 Cr.P.C. provides that every offence shall ordinarily be Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3444 o f 2017 (4) dt.15-01-2018 P/ 4 enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Apparently, in the present case, the offence alleged was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Kishanganj Court. Therefore, the Court was competent to entertain the complaint case and issued process against the appellants.
Background of the allegation, cannot be a ground to interfere with the summoning order.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it stands dismissed.
(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./-
U T