Judgment:
ORDER
Abjihit Sinha, J.
1. The two petitioners, who have been named in the F.I.R. of Bihra P.S. Case No. 120 of 2005, have prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, so far as they are concerned, including the order dated 4.10.2007 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, whereby cognizance has been taken against them for offences under Sections 364/34 I.P.C.
2. Briefly stated a compliant bearing No. 833(C) of 2005 was filed by one Nirmal Das, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, alleging commission of offences under Sections 364/120-B I.P.C. by the accused persons named therein from 13.3.2005 upto date. The said complaint was transmitted to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on the basis thereof the instant police case came to be registered.
3. It has been stated in the complaint that the petitioners and other accused persons are pretty influential in the village. It has further been stated that the husband of petitioner No. 1 owns landed property in village Rakia but for undertaking contract work the petitioners shifted to Jasidih where they have constructed their house also. Further allegation in the complaint petition is that five years ago all the accused persons including the petitioners asked the informant to send his son for domestic help and as the petitioners and other accused persons enjoyed some status in the village, the complainant sent his son with the accused persons to Jasidih for working as a domestic servant. The remuneration of the son of the informant used to be given by the husband of petitioner No. 1 when he used to come to the village. The petitioners defaulted in making payments regularly and when on one occasion the complainant went to Jasidih residence of the petitioners to demand payment, evasive reply was given to him as a result whereof he brought back his son to village Bihra. Later, it has been stated, the petitioners with their family came to the village home and again asked the son of the informant to accompany them to Jasidih and also promised to pay Rs. 1500/- per month. In the month of March, April, 2005 when the monthly remuneration was not sent by the accused persons, then the complainant talked to the husband of petitioner No. 1 on telephone and then he is alleged to have promised to send the money by post. When no money was forthcoming, the complainant again reminded the petitioners for payment of money when the petitioners are alleged to have stated that no money is due against them. It was also stated by the petitioners that even the son of the complainant is not present in Jasidih. Since the complainant could not contact his son over telephone he along with his father-in-law again visited the petitioners where they were ill treated and no definite reply was given. The complainant claims to have learnt from the neighbourhood that the accused persons have caused disappearance of his son. It was, therefore, complained by the complainant that all the accused persons, out of a pre meditated plan to misappropriate the money which was due to the complainant, has caused the disappearance of his son.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it would be apparent from perusal of the First Information Report that a false case on concocted grounds have been lodged against the family members and from the narration of events, it would be clear that the son of the informant was working for several years as domestic help at Jasidih and there would be no occasion for the petitioners to have caused disappearance of their co-villager. The reason assigned for the false implication is that the father of the victim was in employment of the petitioners for several years and he was looking after their landed property in village Rakia and when the petitioners found that the informant was defrauding in agricultural operations and in maintenance of the household at his village home he divested the informant of his responsibility of cultivating the land and the work of management of the landed property was handed over to another villager Ramanand Singh who had settled in the village after retirement from Military service. It has also been submitted that when the son of the informant sought leave to visit his home for a fortnight the benevolent master permitted him to visit his home but when he did not return or send any information the petitioners only thought it proper to inquire about his whereabouts and in course thereof they learnt that he had not reached home and accordingly an informatory petition bearing No. 565 of 2005 was filed before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar. Several other issues have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to show that the petitioners are in no way connected with the offence or of the missing of the victim boy.
5. Unfortunately, all the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners happen to be their defence which cannot be looked into or considered in this proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners are, accordingly, given liberty to raise all these points at the stage of framing of charge which is the appropriate forum where these matters can be thrashed out and in the event these issues are raised before the court, it shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.
6. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, mentioned above, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise these issues before the appropriate forum at the appropriate time.