SRI NIVAS PANDEY AND OTHERS Vs. SRI RANGNATH MISHRA
LAWS(GAU)-2018-3-157
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on March 12,2018

Sri Nivas Pandey And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Sri Rangnath Mishra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN,J. - (1.) AND ORDER By way of present petition under section 482 CrPC, 1973 the three petitioners who has been arrayed as an accused in a complaint case No. 4701C/2009 has sought for passing of the said complaint.
(2.) According to the petitioners a title suit No. 183/2009 has been filed by the petitioner No. 3 Smti Lakhpati Devi against one Indu Konwar and Rameshwar Pandey for declaration of right title interest at Chhapra, Bihar and one Joginder Konwer is the son of said Rameshwar Pandey who is residing at Beltola, Guwahati. However, they did not know the complainant Rangnath Mishra, but on enquiry came to know that Rangnath Mishra is working under Joginder Pandey. It is submitted that with a view to weaken the said civil suit and to blackmail the present petitioner Rameshwar Singh projected the complainant to file false criminal case against them. Accordingly, one Rangnath Mishra (who is not known to the petitioner) filed a complainant before the court of CJM, Kamrup alleging inter alia that on 26.12.2009 the accused persons came to his contact and introduced themselves they are coming from Chhapra, Bihar for searching job opportunity of the son of Nivas Pandey and seeing their grievances the complainant allowed them to stay them in his house but on the next morning all the accused petitioners stated to have fled away from the house of the complainant along with valuable articles amounting to Rs. 14,900/- and also committed mischief by breaking some household articles. Accordingly, the complaint Case No. 4701C was registered and cognizance was taken under section 379 IPC and summons was issued to the accused petitioner. Challenging the aforesaid Criminal Proceeding the present petition has been preferred challenging the legality and validity of the proceeding as well as cognizance taken by the court.
(3.) Notice was issued to the respondent and in turn the respondent also entered his appearance by engaging counsel but none appeared before the court at the time of hearing of the case.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.