Rameshwar Pandit. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.

[p. sathasivam ; h.l. gokhale, j.j.] - the indian penal code, 1860 section 302 - punishment for murder -- sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav was instituted. sunil yadav was instituted. on 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at nawada sadar hospital, si anil kumar gupta recorded the statement of sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav and on the basis of his statement fir no 12/97 was registered with govindpur p.s under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 447 ipc against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, suresh yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav. the charge-sheet bearing no. 12/97 was submitted in fir no. 11/97 p.s. govindpur, on 30.06.1997 against brahamdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto, maho yadav, paro mahto, kuldeep yadav, sudhir yadav, bale yadav, shivan yadav and suraj yadav and sunil yadav who was later instituted. the charge sheet bearing no. 36/97 was also submitted in fir no. 12/97 p.s. govindpur, on 17.12.1997 against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav except suresh yadav s/o kesho yadav as he had died. informant-naresh yadav (pw-9) informant-sunil yadav (a9 in fir 11/97) brahmdeo yadav, darogi mahto, sunil s/o bale yadav, maho yadav, kuldeep yadav, bale yadav, suraj yadav, shiv nandan yadav, sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav, sudhir yadav and paro mahto, total 11 persons forming a group came there and surrounded them. brahmdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto and maho yadav were armed with rifle. bale yadav, kuldeep yadav, shiv nandan yadav and suraj yadav were armed with gandassa. kuldeep yadav gave gandassa blow to munshi yadav......impersonating himself and after through internal investigation the case has been lodged. there is no apparent and valid reason to quash the first information report. learned additional public prosecutor is also of same view.4. the relevant admitted fact of this case is that new india assurance company limited issued appointment letter in favour of one ram sakal rai, son of shiv nandan rai as sub-staff (peon class- iv), but somehow or other the petitioner obtained the appointment letter and by impersonating himself in place of the appointee ram sakal rai, joined the post and work started doing. however, the real person on getting information raised complains, but could not succeed due to the influences exercised by the petitioner, ultimately lodged criminal case that too could not succeed, on certain technical grounds but there was internal investigation in the matter by the employer and several wrongs committed by the petitioner, to establish himself in place of real appointee have been found mentioning all such details and outcome of the investigation, the case was instituted.5. learned counsel for the petitioner further concedes that at no point of time in earlier cases, the employer was made party to the judicial proceedings or by any means, it was intimated by the petitioner about pendency of such proceedings either before the court below or before this court, where criminal miscellaneous no. 3038 of 1994 was preferred against order taking cognizance in subsequent case instituted by the said original appointee against the petitioner, which was earlier decided in favor of the petitioner and order taking cognizance was quashed.6. since at no point of time, the employer was made party to the proceedings, orders passed therein may not come as a bar against the employer in filing case for the offences committed against them.7. in find no reason to quash the first information report of samastipur sadar p.s. case no. 398 of 2002, which contain details of several.....