IMPORTANT POINT
Murder and criminal conspiracy – Cognizance of offences – Court cannot shut its eyes when there are strong circumstances suggesting malicious prosecution by informant or complainant.

ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, learned APP for the State.

2. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the order dated 21.06.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nalanda at Biharsharif, in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 145(c) of 2013, arising out of Ben P.S. Case No. 79 of 2012 by which the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) has been taken against the petitioners.

3. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that instant matter is an example of malicious prosecution which relates to unnatural death of son of the complainant/informant, in fact, the informant’s son died of an accident when he was riding a tractor and regarding that accident, Ben P.S. Case No. 43 of 2012 was lodged under Sections 279, 304 A and 201 of IPC on the basis of fardbeyan of one, Ram Pravesh Ravidas, brother-in-law of the complainant (O.P. No.2) in which a proper investigation was made and the statement of the deceased’s father was also recorded on 20.05.2012 in which the deceased’s father revealed the factum of accidental death of his son, though, also raised his suspicion about the killing of his son by the accused persons without any basis but however, from this fact it is clearly evident that the O.P. No.2 had got the information of the commission of the alleged occurrence at the initial stage but he remained silent for several days and later filed a typed petition on 25.06.2012 about fifty days after the death of his son and in that petition, he did not disclose any step having been taken by him to lodge an FIR prior to the filing of the petition and the said conduct of the O.P. No.2 in itself shows the malafide intention on his part to harass the petitioners as well as taking money from the petitioners by creating pressure upon them. It is further submitted that in Ben P.S. Case No. 43 of 2012 the police submitted chargesheet under Sections 279, 304A and 201 of IPC against one, Manoj Ravidas, who was driving the alleged tractor from which the deceased fell down and consequently died and there are sufficient materials in the case diary of the Ben P.S. Case No. 43 of 2012 to show the death of the deceased having taken place on account of motor accident and further, the inquest report and postmortem report also did not suggest the commission of the alleged murder and the external and internal injuries found on the body of the deceased are quite possible by a motor accident. It is further submitted that the O.P. No.2 simply raised his suspicion in his protest petition and regarding the motive of the petitioners to commit the alleged crime he simply disclosed that a sum of Rs. 15,000/ and 20,000/- had been given to the petitioners Ram Pravesh Ravidas and Kameshwar Ravidas for the purpose of meeting marriage expenses as well as for purchasing a tractor but regarding these facts, the statement made in the paragraph no. 8 of the complaint is completely vague and no evidence was given in this regard before the inquiry court and further, the police did not find substance in the allegations levelled by the O.P. No.2 in Ben P.S. Case No. 79 of 2012 andi consequently, police submitted the final form in favour of the petitioners showing the institution of the FIR due to mistake of fact.

4. On the contrary, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 has vehemently opposed this petition and he submits that the instant matter relates to an unnatural death of the son of the O.P. No.2 and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the serious offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of IPC and the complainant (O.P. No.2) disclosed the reason of delay in filing the complaint and further, before the