Munni Devi @ Nanni Devi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Heard the parties.

This is an application for quashing the order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has not taken cognizance under Sections 147, 149, 148, 323, 341, 379, 429, 504, 354, 392 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dayan Act against all the accused persons (opposite parties) in Complaint Case bearing C.R. No.279/17 (T.R.1999/18), rather the learned trial court has taken cognizance against only two accused persons i.e. the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no. 3, under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 05.06.2015, one complaint case bearing Complaint Case No.517 of 2015 in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur stating in her complaint that the complainant is residing in her naihar village Khirkhariya, and on 29.05.2015 when the complainant was taking her meal all the accused persons (opposite party nos. 2 to 13) armed with lathi and iron rod came there, and started abusing the complainant saying Dyan-Dyan, and when the complainant protested, all accused persons caught hold her hair and they started beating the complainant by lathi, iron rod and thereafter some dirty thing from water glass was forcefully pour in her mouth by the accused persons. It was further alleged in the complaint petition that the accused persons were saying for killing of Dyan, and when the complainant became unconscious, the accused persons took out all the clothes from the body of the complainant as a result the complainant became clothless, and thereafter all the accused persons entered in the house of complainant and took gold and silver ornaments of Rs. 50,000/- and clothes of 10,000/-. It was further alleged that accused Geeta Devi snatched ear ring of Rs. 45000/-. It was also alleged in the complaint petition that on 25.05.2015 all the accused persons had given poison in the "NAD" as a result buffalo of father of the complainant died. It was lastly alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant was treated in Sub-Divisional Hospital, Jhanjharpur and for lodging an F.I.R. the complaint gave her application to the Officer-in-Charge, Araria Sangram but when the Officer-in-Charge, Araria Sangram refused to lodge an F.I.R., then the complainant filed a Complaint before the learned court of A.C.J.M., Jhanjharpur, which was sent to Officer-in-Charge Araria Sangram Police Station under Section 156(iii) of Cr.P.C., and thereafter Araria Sangram P.S. Case No. 107 of 2015 dated 04.07.2015 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 504, 448, 380, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 Witch (Daain) Act was lodged.

After investigation, the police submitted final form bearing final form no.44 of 2016 dated 31.05.2016, by which the case was not found true against the accused persons. Subsequently, protest petition treating as a complaint case, the learned jurisdictional magistrate proceed with the matter through Cr. No.279 of 2017, and after recording the statement of complainant on oath and examining other enquiry witnesses, took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against two accused persons namely, Geeta Devi and Shivajee Mahto.

Being aggrieved with aforesaid cognizance order, the present petition was preferred as to exercise inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, as petitioner/complainant was mainly aggrieved that the material for taking cognizance is available against all the accused persons.

It would be apposite to reproduce the impugned order dated 16.08.2018 which reads as under:-

Upon perusal of record and considering the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears to this court that the learned jurisdictional magistrate passed a reasoned order after going through the statement of complainant on oath, and other enquiry witnesses, and therefore, there is no occasion to interfere the impugned order at this stage. However, the petitioner is given liberty to raise all such issues at appropriate stage during the trial.

With aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.