Back
2019 Supreme(Pat) 119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Narendra Prasad Pandey, Son Of S.D. Pandey - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 58384 of 2015
Decided on : 18-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Alok Kumar Agrawal, Adv., Priya Gupta, Adv., Mohit Agrawal, Adv., Ganesh Prasad Singh, Adv., Arjun Kumar Singh, Adv., Rameshwar Singh, Adv.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of order taking cognizance under Section 420 IPC – Petitioner alleged to have kept the son of complainant (O.P. No.2) as a domestic servant and took Rs. 2,75,000/- for providing him a railway job but neither the employment was given nor the money was returned – Petitioner also allegedly mixed some chemical in the tea, after consuming which the son died – no valid or reasonable ground as to why the O.P. No.2 not moved the police at the relevant time itself – There was no such allegation worth believing with regard to the son of the O.P. No.2 being given some intoxicating tea and of there being any nexus between such tea and the death of the son – Had there been any direct nexus, at the very time of taking his son to the doctor and even at the hospital, in the natural course of events information would have been given to the local police, either by the O.P. No.2 or the doctor of the said hospital – Doctor of the hospital neither was made a witness or examined during enquiry unexplained delay of 24 days in filing the complaint – Section 302 of the IPC not mentioned in the description of the offences in the complaint case which indicates that there was no serious allegation of murder, much less against the petitioner – No averment that the petitioner in any capacity was involved in the recruitment so as to at least indicate that as a recruiter, he could have asked for illegal gratification – Allowing the criminal proceeding to continue would be an abuse of a process of the court – Present criminal case is for oblique reasons and for harassing the petitioner – Application allowed entire criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 7 to 10)
(2015)6 SCC 287, 2011 (1) PLJR 780, Cr. Misc. No. 42515 of 2013 dt. 8.4.2017 – Referred.
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) for the following relief:
“That, this is an application for quashing the order dated 30.01.2013 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas in Complaint Case No. 427 of 2012 whereby the said learned Court has taken cognizance under Section 420 of I.P.C. and has proceeded for issuance of summons against the petitioner in the said case.”
3. The complainant being a Senior Officer working under the Railways is alleged by the opposite party no. 2, who incidentally happens to be a distant relative, keeping his son as a domestic servant for sometime and taking Rs.2,75,000/- on the pretext of providing him a job under the Railways. It was alleged that neither the employment was given nor on demand the money was returned and also that the petitioner had mixed some chemical in the tea, after consuming which the son had died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire allegation is false and concocted and only with a view to harass. It was submitted that he is a distant relative of the opposite party no. 2 and was being pressurized for providing work to his son but when the petitioner expressed his inability he has been implicated. It was submitted that the son of the complainant is alleged to have died on 04.06.2012, whereas the complaint was filed on 28.06.2012, after 24 days without any reasonable explanation. Learned counsel submitted that the absurdity in the prosecution story is also clear from the fact that in paragraph 4, it has been stated that the petitioner had scolded the son of the opposite party no. 2 and had misbehaved with him and had turned him out of the gate and in the same breath, it has also been stated that the petitioner had offered tea to the son of the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel submitted that the same cannot be believed by any prudent man for the reason that on the one hand a person would offer tea and on the other hand in the very next moment would scold him and turn him out from the house. It was further submitted that the fact that the opposite party no. 2 had stated in the complaint itself that about the said development he was informed by his son and then he came to his son who informed that the petitioner had put some intoxicating substance in the tea and thereafter he was taken by the opposite party no. 2 for treatment, also cannot be accepted due to the fact that there was huge time gap between alleged drinking of tea by the son of the opposite party no. 2 at the house of the petitioner and him being taken to the doctor, as alleged in the complaint. It was further submitted that the averment that the son of opposite party no. 2 had been offered tea which was mixed with some intoxicating substance cannot be believed also for the reason that if the same was true, the son of the petitioner would not have had any sense to return home and if he had returned home and had informed his father and the father came there, there could not have been anything dangerous in the tea which was given to the son of the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel submitted that had there been any life taking substance, then gap between the son of the opposite party no. 2 having tea at the house of the petitioner and him dying would not have been so long. Learned counsel submitted that no such report of the doctor has been annexed and further that if the son had informed the opposite party no. 2 with regard to something being mixed in his tea due to which he had become ill and the same led to death, it was the duty of the opposite party no. 2 to inform the police about such unnatural death and not doing so and which has led to there being no postmortem, at this stage, such grave allegatio
