HARI SHANKAR PRASAD,J. - (1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for quashing the order dated 22 -7 -2002 whereby the learned Court below below has taken cognizance under Sections 323 and 379/341 PC.
(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief is that O.P. No. 2 Ajay Kumar Sinha filed a complaint petition in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi against the petitioner and two others under Sections 452, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code for occurrence dated 5 -5 -2002 at 3.00 p.m. alleging therein that complainant is the son -in -law of the petitioner and that on 5 -5 -2002 at about 3.00 p.m., petitioner along with two other accused persons in a Maruti Van cam to the house of the complainant and told him that they have come to take the wife and children of the complainant because there was marriage of Saali of the complainant in the house of accused persons. The daughter of the complainant who was aged six years old and was a student of class I in Sacred Heart School, Hulundo had a to appear in the examination on 6 -5 -2002 and as such, the complainant requested the accused -person not to take away his family and promised that they will attend each and every function later on. On this, accused -persons became angry and started abusing the complainant but the complainant requested the accused -persons not to abuse him and also asked them to leave his house, Further case of the complainant is that petitioner and two other accused -persons went away out of his house and again came back with chain in the hands of petitioner, iron rod in the hands of accused No. 2 and tangi in the hands of accused No. 3 and all of a sudden, petitioner assaulted complainant with chain while accused No. 2 assaulted complainant with iron rod on his head causing bleeding injury and accused No. 3 took out Rs. 5,000/ - from the pocket of complainant which was kept for giving presentation to his Saali, Wife and children of the complainant started crying and the neighbours arrived there and saved the complainant while the petitioner and two other accused -persons filed away on their Maruti Van bearing Registration No. BR -14J 4180 and also carried away his wife and children. Complainant with the help of the witnesses was taken to Chuita police station but police did not hear anything because accused -persons were also there. One witness Pradip Kumar took the complainant to Sadar Hospital, Ranchi and six stiches were applied on the head of the complainant next day on 6 -5 -2002. After discharge from the hospital, he again went to the police station but the police refused to take the report and assured the complainant that they will make an inquiry into the matter and then case will be lodged but the police did not come and thereafter, complainant has filed this complaint case and the complaint case was transferred to the Court of Smt. Radha Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi for inquiry and trial and she was pleased to examine the complainant on 3 -6 -2002 and after holding inquiry under Section 202 IPC examined three witnesses and was pleased to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 323 and 379/34 IPC. It is submitted on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the story hatched up by the complainant is most unbelievable and even a mad man cannot behave in the way the petitioner Harballava Chandra Prasad is said to have behaved with his own son -in -law. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner had gone for inviting complainant for attending the marriage of his daughter and for facilitating the journey by their car. But it appears from the complaint petition that they had gone fully prepared to assault the complainant as it appears from complaint petition that just after exchange of hot words, petitioner went back and brought chain, accused No. 2 brought iron rod and accused No. 3 brought tangi and it so appears that they had come fully prepared with those weapons knowing fully well that such an ugly scene they would have to face and they had come prepared not for inviting complainant who is the son -in -law of the petitioner and other family members who are none less than daughter and grand maternal children. Learned Counsel further pointed out that it is very ridiculous to note that as per complaint petition, complainant was brutally assaulted resulted in bleeding injury on his head but his wife and children went away with the petitioner leaving complainant to his fate, this makes the whole case unbelievable. It was also submitted that the complainant was the medical representative at the time of marriage and due to some reason, he was removed from the service and, therefore, petitioner accused, who is father -in -law of the complainant, had to spend lot in establishing him in the business of medicine shop and he has filed this case for extracting money from his father -in -law who is petitioner.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submitted that the petitioner is a man of belligerent nature and he is in habit of making unnecessary interference in the happy conjugal life of O.P. No. 2 and due to this very nature, the family life of eldest sister of wife of complainant has become miserable and marriage in between her eldest sister and her husband has been dissolved. Learned Counsel further submitted that inspite of repeated requests, the petitioner did not relent and thereafter, started abusing complainant and ultimately brought weapons and assaulted the complainant. Learned Counsel further submitted that cognizance in the case has been taken after inquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. and there is nothing, which warrants interference of the High Court. In this connection, he placed reliance upon (2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 236, wherein it has been held that trial Court order summoning the accused requires interference by High Court on assumption of certain facts is impermissible. In this connection, Para 4 of the case is quoted herein below: '4. We are of the opinion that at the stage of summoning when evidence was yet to be led by the parties, the High Court could not on an assumption of facts come to a finding of fact that the respondent was not responsible for the conduct of the business, On this ground alone, these appeals are allowed and the impugned decision of the High Court is set aside'. Learned Counsel further placed reliance upon 2001 (2) East Cr. Cases 330 (Pat) in which it has been held that on a petition filed under Sections 482 and 294 Cr. P.C., no interference is required in the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the O.P. No. 2 further placed reliance upon (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 174 in which it has been held that power should be exercised sparingly by High Court and in this very case, a complain was lodged by the director of the company against other director of the company alleging commission of offence and summons issued by Special Judge requiring accused director to appear in person before the Court. A petition was filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceeding, inter alia, on the ground that no offence was committed by the accused persons. It was held that a prima facie case is made out and by not interfering in the impugned order High Court did the right thing. Learned Counsel further pointed out that from the Inquiry conducted under Section 202 Cr. P.C., witnesses were examined and they have supported the case, besides there is documentary proof of the medical report issued by Government doctor and that there is no ground for interfering in the impugned order which has correctly been passed after finding a prima facie case to have been made out and, therefore, this quashing application is fit to be dismissed. ;