JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) The aforesaid two Cr. Misc.
petitions have arisen out of the same cognizance order dated 2-8-2002, whereby and
whereunder the cognizance in the cases has
been taken in P.C.R. Case No. 48 of 2002
against the petitioners of both the cases and
since the points in both cases are same, they
are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) The facts giving rise to filing of the
application are that the Opposite Party No.
2 has filed a complaint case being P.C.R.
No. 48 of 2000 against the petitioners and
others stating, inter alia, therein that on 1 -
12-1999 at 7 A.M., Opposite Party/complainant was in his village home, co-accused/petitioner
Gopal Prasad Gupta came
to him and asked him to meet the petitioner/accused Ram Das Roy, who was then State
Minister (Mining) as Opposite Parly No. 2/Complainant has not fulfilled rangadari tax
and when the complainant/Opposite Party
expressed his inability to meet the petitioner,
Ram Das Ray then he was threatened with
bad consequences by co-accused/petitioner
Gopal Prasad Gupta and also told that his
all family members will be finished. The accused/petitioner No. 1 was staying in the
Dakbunglow near Urja Nagar then Opposite
Party/Complainant went to accused/petitioner No. 1 where accused/petitioner No. 3
was also present. The Opposite Party/Complainant informed the petitioner No. 1 about
his inability to pay the Rangdari Tax as demanded by him from before, whereupon the
petitioner/accused No. 1 said that if his demand is not fulfilled, he and his family members
shall have to face bad consequences
as he has given sufficient time previously
and as election is scheduled and as complainant/Opposite party has not paid Rs.
50,000/- as demanded earlier and now he
will have to make payment a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- whereas accused petitioner
Gopal Prasad and accused petitioner No. 3
said that complainant Opposite party would
not pay Rangdari Tax and they have further
said that they have already made demand
of Rs. 50,000/- from him but his demand
was not fulfilled, hence they should be paid
Rs. 1,00,000/-. They have further taken a
plea that if the complainant/Opposite Party
is left untouched, then others will follow suit
but complainant/opposite party refused to
fulfil the demand, then he was threatened
by all the accused persons-petitioners. Accused Gopal Prasad misbehaved with the
complainant/Opposite Party and abused
him and arrested. Complainant lodged a
false case against him being Boarijore
(Lalmatia) P.S. Case No. 93 of 1999 dated 1-12-1999 without any authority as he was
not connected in any mining work and petitioner/accused No. 1 threatened him that
he would ruin the reputation of complainant by publishing objectionable information
against knowing full well that only by defaming the complainant he may be compelled
to pay rangdari tax to accused persons who are partners in extorting the local
people under threat. After arrest, complainant/Opposite party was brought to Court of
learned Magistrate and the Court was
pleased to refer him to hospital seeing his
condition and a Medical Board was constituted to report about the condition of the
petitioner and even Medical Board also
found that the condition of complainant is
serious and complainant was treated in hospital. But on the other hand, case lodged by
accused Gopal Prasad Gupta, it was alleged
that the Opposite Party/complainant No. 1,
was found at the site of Hahajore at 7 a.m.
where illegal mining work was done under
the leadership of the complainant. The accused persons have formed an illegal gang
and they asked the local people to pay illegal money as "rangdari" tax and on refusal
made by any one in the area, said persons
are being implicated in false cases. Petitioner/accused No. 3 is said to have published
defamatory news item used to defame
said persons and whole locality is afraid of
accused persons. Petitioner/accused No. 3
was described to be "notorious mafia of
coals" and the said news was published to
terrorize local people and to defame complainant knowing full well that news was
false one and was published as a part of
conspiracy to put pressure on complainant
to fulfil illegal demand of accused persons
knowing further well that false news would
cause loss of prestige.
The complainant/Opposite Party was arrested in the case and was enlarged on bail
on 23-12-1999 but the condition of the complainant was still serious. He went to
Bhagalpur for his treatment where he was
under the treatment of Dr. A. K. Sinha from
26-12-1999 to 23-1-2000. Thereafter he has
filed this complaint case.
(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner-accused Ramdas Ray that the
only allegation against the petitioner is that
he possessed a flat to pay the rangadari tax
and the petitioner replied that the complainant is fully aware that if his demand shall
not be fulfilled, he and his family member
shall have to face bad consequences as he
was given sufficient time previously. It is
further stated that so far demand of
rangadari and threatening to the complainant is concerned, there is no whisper against
the petitioner and these allegations have
been lvelled only against the co-accused,
whose name appears at serial Nos. 2 and 3
of the complaint petition. It is further pointed
out that the fact is that co-accused Gopal
Prasad Gupta, who is a Range Officer of the
Forest, had lodged a case against the complainant/opposite party,
which was registered as Boarijore (Lalmatia) P.S. Case No.
93 of 1999 on 1-12-1999 and the opposite
party was taken into custody and he was
granted bail on 23-12-1999 and pairvikar
of complainant-opposite party had approached the petitioner, who was at Godda
to make pairvy and speak to the petitioner-
Gopal Prasad Gupta accused not to arrest
him but the petitioner refused and the complainant-opposite party No. 2 being
aggrieved by the said order filed the instant
case as counter blast. There is inordinate
delay in filing the complainant case as the
occurrence is of the month of December,
1999 and this case has been filed on 20-1-2000 and further no
case is made out under Sections 384, 504, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.