IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.29474 of 2009
1. Naresh Kumar Prasad @ Naresh Gupta, S/O-Late Kedar Nath Prasad
2. Manoj Kumar Prasad @Manoj Gupta, S/O- Sri Naresh Kumar Prasad
Both are resident of village-Dand-Khora, P.S.-Dandkhora, District-
Katihar..................Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar ................Opposite Party.
-----------
02 14.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of
admission.
This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been
filed for quashing the order dated 12.06.2009 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Dandkhora P.S. Case No. 48 of 2008
by which and whereunder he took cognizance for the offences under
Sections 341, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is
that informant Bannu Paswan gave a written report to Block
Development Officer-cum Circle Officer, Dandkhora alleging therein
that he had received coupon of 25 kg. rice from the aforesaid Block
Development Officer, Dandkhora as compensation and when he went
to dealer, Manoj Gupta, the aforesaid dealer took his coupon and did
not supply rice and on 10.06.2008, when he again went to demand the
rice in lieu of above stated coupon, the petitioner no. 1 who happens
to be father of petitioner no. 2, namely, Manoj Kumar Prasad @
Manoj Gupta ordered petitioner no. 2 to assault the informant and
after that petitioner no. 2 put a Gamcha around the neck of the
informant and started assaulting him as a result of which he sustained
2
injury. On the basis of aforesaid written report, Dandkhora P.S. Case
No. 48 of 2008 under Sections 341, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code
was registered and after due investigation, police submitted charge-
sheet in the above stated offences. The learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate having perused the materials available on the case diary
passed the impugned order taking cognizance under Sections 341,
323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the
impugned order arguing that in course of investigation not a single
witness has supported the prosecution case nor any injury was found
on the person of the informant as he refused to get examine himself
medically. It is also contended by him that, as a matter of fact, the
alleged coupon issued to informant belonged to the shop of one
Brahmanand Sao and when the aforesaid fact was disclosed by
petitioner no. 2 to informant, he became furious and abused the
petitioners and after that lodged the above stated case without any
genuine reason. It is also contended by him that the present case is
squarely covered by the well-known decisions of Bhajan Lal’s Case.
Learned counsel appearing for the State refuted the
above stated submissions and submitted that all the above stated
points raised by the petitioners may be considered by the learned court
below at the time of framing of the charge and it is not proper stage to
set aside the cognizance order on the basis of aforesaid submissions.
Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties, I
have gone through the record. Admittedly, the above stated
3
Dandkhora P.S. Case No. 48 of 2008 has been registered on the basis
of written report of informant and the informant has very specifically
stated that he was assaulted by the petitioners with fists and slaps and
furthermore, it is also an admitted position that after investigation
police has submitted charge-sheet under Sections 341,323/34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
As per submission of learned counsel for the petitioners,
in course of investigation some witnesses stated that it was informant
himself who abused the petitioners and also gave threatening of dire
consequences to them but, in my view, it is not proper stage to set
aside the cognizance order on the basis of statements of above stated
witnesses.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, this petition is
dismissed on admission stage itself.
However, the petitioners may raise all their pleas at the
time of explanation of accusation/framing of the charge and if they do
so, the learned trial court shall consider the aforesaid pleas in
accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.
SHAHZAD ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)