Kriparam vs Raju Singh and Another

B.M. Gupta, J.

On perusal of the record of the trial court, it appears that one complaint dated 1/7/04 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner against Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 for the offence punishable u/s 463, 464, 264, 343 and 147 of IPC alongwith Section 11/13 of the M.P.D.V.P.K. Act. During enquiry, learned Magistrate recorded statements of Petitioner Kriparam alongwith his witnesses Balakram and Ramchandra. A report was called from the police on which report dated 17/8/04 alongwith some documents and the statements recorded during enquiry, were submitted by in-charge police station Phoof District Bhind. After considering the statements and the report, the learned Judge has rejected the complaint. Feeling aggrieved, this revision by the complainant.

Shri Seth for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has submitted that except three brothers, no independent witness has been examined on behalf of the Petitioner. Complaint has been filed after an inordinate delay of more than ten months.

Petitioner is 43 years of age and unmarried person, as it appears from the complaint. As per the compliant, he was persuaded to consume alcohol and thereafter under the impression of alcohol, his signatures were obtained on the sale-deed on 10/9/03 on the pretext that he is to put his signatures on some security papers for loan, which is to be obtained by Respondent No. 1 Raju Singh. Thereafter he alongwith his household material including cooler, fan, gas cylinder, sleeping mattress etc. was brought without his consent or knowledge from his village Phoof towards Itawa (UP) and kept confined in a room in village Chhichha. After 2-3 days of 22/9/03 on account of his ailment, he was taken from village Chhichha to village Bidki from where he informed one Virendra Sharma of his village about his abduction and confinement. Thereafter, on 26/9/03 police got him released. Prima faciely this story appears improbable.

With regard to giving information on telephone, there is difference in the statements. In para -7 of his statement, he stated 22/9/03 while witness Balakram (PW-2) and Ramchandra (PW-3) have stated in his statement para-2 that information was received on 24/9/03. On Perusal of copy of the sale-deed, it appears that the same was executed in presence of witness Darshan Singh and Thakur Singh. Darshan Singh may be a relative of the Respondents. Thakur Singh appears material witness who has not been examined. As per para -14 of the complaint, a report of his missing was lodged at police station, but on perusal of police report dated 17/8/04, in para-12 it is mentioned that on 25/9/03 i.e. after receiving the information on telephone, the report about his missing was lodged, while he was missing from 10/9/03. Vide this police report, it also appears that on enquiry it was found that Respondent No. 1 Raju Singh had left India on 19.9.03. In view of this fact, his involvement up to 26.9.03 appears prima faciely false. Vide this report, it also appears that Petitioner went alongwith Respondents on his own will and he was not taken by force. Vide para-13 of the report, it appears that a huge amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- and Rs. 26,981/- total Rs. 2,66,981/- was found deposited in the account of the Petitioner on 9.9.03. The consideration of the sale-deed appears Rs. 4,47,900/- and it is also mentioned that this amount has already been received. If the sale-deed was not executed, from which source this amount was received by the Petitioner, it has not been explained. Consequently, the revision is dismissed.