Full Judgment
Harishankar Prasad, J.
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 PCR 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 PCR 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 party No. 2/complainant has not fulfilled rangdari 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 fulfill 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 N. 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 fulfill illegal demand of accused persons knowing further well 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 rangdari 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 rangdari and threatening to the complainant is concerned, there is no whisper against the petitioner and these allegations have been levelled 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 Forrest, 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, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. That the petitioner, who was State Minister in Government of Bihar, was a public servant and as such, the learned lower Court is not justified in taking the cognizance without sanction as required under Section 97 of the Cr PC and prior sanction is a condition precedence. It is also submitted that it is well settled that if from the FIR no prima fade case is made out then such case could be quashed.
5. On behalf of the petitioner accused Rabindra Nath Dutta, it has been submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case only because he had lodged a case against the opposite-complainant under various sections of the Forest Act and being aggrieved by lodging of the case, this complainant-opposite party has implicated him falsely alongwith other co-accused. He has got no action with other co-accused of the case, as he is a Range Officer and not a politician and the case against him will be hit by Section 197, Cr PC and before taking cognizance against him sanction is must under Section 197, Cr PC but without considering this aspect of the matter, cognizance against him has been taken.
6. On behalf of the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 334/2003, a plea has been advanced that there is ho allegation against him and the only allegation against him is that he has stated that demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- is justified and no defamatory article has been published by the petitioner so no case is made out under Section 504, IPC. Similarly on behalf of all the petitioners it has been stated that no case under Section 384, IPC is made out because ingredients of Section 384 are lacking besides there is no offence under Section 120B, IPC is made out because there is no meeting of mind among the parties and further no case under Section 504, IPC is made, but because ingredients of Section 504, IPC is also lacking.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposite party submitted that the cognizance in the case has been taken after due enquiry and examination of witnesses in the enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC and that these three persons were in leg with each other and when complainant opposite party refused to make payment of Rs. 50,000/- as rangdari tax, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- due to refusal of the complainant opposite party on earlier occasion and petitioner accused Rabindra Nath Dutta went to complainant opposite party to talk because petitioner No. 1 Ramdas Ray and accused petitioner No. 3 used to publish such a defamatory article in the newspaper only to pressurize the local people so that rangdari tax demanded by accused petitioner No. 1 should be fulfilled by the concerned persons. It was further pointed out that whatever plea has been taken by the learned counsels for the parties, is not justified and this plea can be taken at the trial stage only and not at this stage of quashing.
8. On behalf of the learned counsels for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties several case laws have been cited but I do not want to deal with those case laws here, as I feel that points which have been taken in course of submission on behalf of the petitioners are fit to be raised before the learned Court below and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order taking cognizance against the petitioners and accordingly both applications are dismissed but with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the points, which have been taken before this Court and other points which may accrue to the petitioners, before the learned Court below and learned Court below, without being prejudiced by this order of dismissal, will pass a speaking order at appropriate stage, when such pleas are taken before the learned Court below.