Kanti Devi & Ors. vs State Of Bihar & Ors. on 16 February, 2012

[Cites 8, Cited by 6]

Jharkhand High Court

Kanti Devi & Ors. vs State Of Bihar & Ors. on 16 February, 2012

Bench: Prashant Kumar

                   Cr. Misc. No. 9377 of 1999 (R)

     In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure

                                           ----
1.Kanti Devi
2.Ruka Devi
3.Bhagwan Sao
4.Munna Kumar
5.Ramchander Sao          ..   ....        ....   ...   ....   ....    Petitioners
                          Versus
1. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
2. Vishwanath Sao                                     .... Opp. Parties
                               ....
For the Petitioners            :Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
                                Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties           :Mr. Shashank Shekhar Prasad, APP
                                Mr. Ravi Prakash
                                      ....

                            PRESENT
               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
                            .........


Prashant Kumar, J.               This application       has been filed for quashing

of first information report as well as entire prosecution case in connection

with Manatu P.S. Case No. 37 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No. 1282 of

1999 under Sections 498/406/420/380/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.                  It is submitted by Sri R.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for

the petitioners that from perusal of first information report, no offence is

made out. It is further submitted that present case is a counter-blast of

earlier case filed by petitioner no. 1 vide complaint case no. 1224 of 1999.

Accordingly, it is submitted that the first information report is liable to be

quashed.

3.                  On the other hand, Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Additional PP

and Sri Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that

from the allegations made in the first information report, offences are made

out. Thus, at this stage, it is not in the interest of justice to stop Investigation

of the case.

4.                  Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the
       record of case. In the first information report, it is stated that

      complainant/opposite party no. 2 brought his wife(petitioner no. 1) on

      17.10.1999

from her parental house . Thereafter accused persons came to his house on 4.11.1999 and asked complainant/opposite party no. 2 for sending petitioner no. 1 with them. It is stated that on 5.11.1999, when opposite party no. 2 went to market for purchasing some articles, in his absence, petitioners took away ornaments worth Rs. 33,000/-, Cash Rs. 40,000/- and other articles from his house. It is also alleged that when opposite party no. 2 went to his in-laws house on 7.11.1999, he was assaulted by accused persons. Thus, from the allegations made in the first information report prima-facie some of the offences are made out against the accused petitioners. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that present case filed maliciously because petitioner no. 1 filed a complaint case against complainant/opposite party no.2 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code does not inspire confidence because in the F.I.R. it is mentioned that on 17.10.1999 petitioner no. 1 namely Kanti Devi had returned with complainant/opposite party no. 2, thus it appears that after filing of complaint case bearing no. 1224 of 1999, petitioner no. 1 returned to the house of complainant/opposite party no. 2. In my view, all these facts require investigation.

5. Under the said circumstance, at this stage, I am not inclined to quash first information report. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Prashant Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 16.02.2012 Binit/NAFR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court