RADHEY SHYAM TIWARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.5.2002 passed by Shri Ranjeet Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gumla, in Case No. C-3/97, whereby the application filed by the petitioner accused for discharge was rejected by the Court below."

(2.) It appears that a complaint case was filed against the petitioner by opposite party No. 2, Janki Prasad Sahu wherein it was alleged against the petitioner, who is a police officer, to have demanded Rs. 2000/- per month from the complainant as he was running an Ambulance and was also keeping patients in his house for treatment. The said complaint case was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and was registered as Case No. C-3/1997. It appears that the statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation and the witnesses were also examined in the enquiry stage, who have supported the case of the complainant and accordingly, prima facie case was found against the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 384 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and process was directed to be issued against him. It appears that subsequently the petitioner filed an application for discharge, which was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch, the Court below has failed to take into consideration the fact that on the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioner being the police officer had gone to perform duty in connection with another case on the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Gumla. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case in order to wreck vengeance against him, inasmuch one Basia Rs. Case No. 65 of 1996 was instituted against the nephew of the complainant for the offence under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, in which, subsequently, the name of the complainant had also transpired in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. However, the fact remains that the statement of the victim was recorded on 7.1.1997 whereas the complaint case was filed on 3.1.1997 i.e. prior to the recording of the statement of the victim.