AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Revision Application is directed against the composite order dated 4.3.2015 passed in Cril. Misc. Case No.572 of 2014 arising out of (FIR No.25(3)2014 City Police Station registered u/s 366/368/511/34 IPC and also in other Criminal case) whereby and whereunder the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West, discharged the accused persons- respondents from the case.
Before testing the legality and propriety of the impugned order the case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of which is as follows. The complainant filed a Complaint Case vide Cril. Misc Case No.153 of 2014 on 1.3.2014 against the accused persons-respondents, namely Rakesh Prasad Sahu, Ajay Kumar Sahu, Md. Ziaur Rahman and Amit Chakraborty alleging therein that the accused Rakesh Prasad Sahu was in visiting term with them as his son Nitish Kumar Gupta happened to be his friend. On 25.2.2014 while her daughter was strolling near Khuyathong Pukhri Achouba, she was kidnapped by said Rakesh Prasad Sahu along with his some unknown associates for the purpose of marrying her though her daughter had given consent for marrying another boy. That was the reason for the accused to kidnap her and that the accused prevailed on her by showing a certificate certifying marriage in between her daughter and said Rakesh Prasad Sahu as a result of which attitude and behaviour of her daughter got changed but the said certificate was forged one.
Upon filing of said complaint, it was forwarded to a police station purportedly to be u/s 156(3) of the Cr. PC to City P.S. for its institution and investigation. Accordingly, it was registered as FIR Case No.25(3) 14 City PS u/s 366/368/511/34 of IPC. In connection with that case, said accused Rakesh Prasad Sahu was arrested and was produced along with the girl in the court before which the girl gave statement that the accused had eloped her with her consent and accordingly the accused was granted bail on 3.3.2014. Subsequently, the complaint filed another complaint case vide Criminal Misc. Case No.178 of 2014 wherein she narrated about the incidence of kidnapping as had been alleged in earlier complaint. That apart, it was also alleged that on 27.2.2014 accused No.2, Ajay Kumar Sahu, who happened to be an Advocate, handed over a Marriage Certificate bearing registration No.43 of 2011 dated 16.7.2011 certifying marriage in between the accused, Rakesh Prasad Sahu and the daughter of the complainant. The said certificate was purported to have been issued by Marriage Officer, Imphal West but the same was a forged document.
Upon filing of the said application, the Court forwarded it to the Officer in- Charge, City P.S. for enquiry vide order dated 14.3.2014. The I.O., during investigation of the earlier case, recorded statement of the accused, Rakesh Prasad Sahu and of the daughter of the complainant who stated before him that she was eloped with her consent. Further, on enquiry it was found that the Marriage Certificate bearing Registration No.43/11 alleged to have been submitted by the accused, Ajay Kumar Sahu, was found to be forged on verification but the certificate of Marriage produced on 27.3.2014 was found to be genuine and accordingly report was submitted to that effect placing therein the entire facts as stated above.
On submission of the said report, parties were heard. The stand which was taken on behalf of the complainant before the learned CJM was that the accused person by producing the certificate bearing Registration No.43/11 being forged, have made themselves liable to be prosecuted for the offence of forgery whereas the stand which has been taken on behalf of the accused person is that the certificate which is said to be forged has never been produced by the accused to the father of the girl and that there does not appear to be any reason to produce that certificate when a genuine certificate had been issued by the Sub Registrar, Imphal East (Marriage Officer).
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, taking into account all the facts and circumstances and also the statement made by the daughter of the complainant before the police and also before the Court that she was eloped with her consent, discharged the accused person vide order dated 4.3.2015 which is under challenge.
When the matter was taken up, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sahu, accused and also an Advocate was present and was heard.
Having regard to all the entire facts as stated above, it does appear that when a complaint case was filed vide Criminal Misc. No.153 of 2014 by the complainant alleging therein about the kidnapping of her daughter by accused Rakesh Prasad Sahu, said complaint was sent to the concerned Police station for its registration and investigation. During course of investigation, the statement of the girl, who happened to be major, was recorded wherein she stated that she was eloped by the accused, Rakesh Prasad Sahu with her consent. In spite of that the accused Rakesh Prasad Sahu was arrested and was produced before the Court on 3.3.2014 along with the girl on which date the girl made a statement before the Court that she had been eloped with her consent and thereby the accused was admitted to bail. Subsequently, another complaint was filed vide Criminal Misc. Case No.178/14 wherein it has been alleged that on 27.2.2014 the accused No.2, Ajay Kumar Sahu, who happens to be an Advocate, produced a certificate bearing Registration No.43/11 before them which was forged and during inquiry also it has been found to be forged. However, during investigation accused denied that such certificate had ever been produced before the father of the complainant; rather a certificate said to have been issued on 16.1.2013 showing the marriage in between the daughter of the complainant and Rakesh Prasad Sahu was found to be genuine on verification. In such situation it becomes quite improbable that accused persons will be producing certificate which was found to be forged and thereby police did not find any substance in the allegation made in the complaint petition and submitted report which was accepted by the learned CJM and discharged the accused persons though police, upon investigating the case, had never found the allegation to be true and thereby they had never been charged with the accusation and in such situation question of discharge does not arise and thereby learned CJM, on accepting the report of the police, should have dropped the proceeding against the accused persons instead of discharging them.
Be that as it may, the order of discharge in the facts and circumstances would amount to dropping of the proceeding. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned trial court calling for any interference. Accordingly, this application, being devoid of any merit, is hereby rejected.