Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10692 of 2011 ====================================================== Gulab Yadav, S/O Late Javich Yadav, R/O Village+P.O.- Gangapur, P.S.- Lakhnaur, District- Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocates. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Braj Kishroe Prasad, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 25-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.1.2011 passed in S.T. No.225 of 2007, arising out of Madhepur (Lakhnaur) P.S. Case no.174 of 2006 by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Madhubani by which the court below has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. 3. From the materials available on record it appears that on the statement of Sondai Kumari the aforesaid case was instituted where she has stated that she along with her cousin Kavita Kumari had gone to cut grass near the brick kiln where Kanahiya Munshi of brick kiln caught both of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10692 of 2011 (3) dt.25-09-2012 2 them and locked in a room of Bhatta. It has further been alleged that one fat person, Mochh Wala committed rape on both sisters one after another. It has been further alleged that Amod Jha was sitting there. It has further been alleged that both (victims) were kept in confinement for whole night and they were released on next day at 6 A.M. It has further been alleged that the brick kiln belonged to Gulab Yadav but Amod Jha run the brick kiln. On the basis of her statement a case was instituted as Madhepur (Lakhnaur) P.S. Case No.174 of 2006 under [STATUTE] read with Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act. 4. It appears from the record that the court below has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . The petitioner filed an application for discharge making a submission that he was neither named in the First Information Report nor he was involved in commission of rape rather due to political rivalry and vendetta he has been implicated in the present case. The court below considered different paragraphs of the case diary and has rejected the discharge petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10692 of 2011 (3) dt.25-09-2012 3 following points which are as follows: (i) Petitioner has not been named in the First Information Report and the victim girls who were examined by the police have not disclosed the name of the petitioner rather in their examination they have stated about Kaihaiya Munshi, Mota Mochh Wala and Amod Jha. Save and except the statement of ownership of petitioner, no allegation has been made against him. (ii) He further submits that in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the case diary both of them did not name this petitioner though in paragraphs 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 26 the witnesses have taken the name of petitioner on the basis of the statement of the victims, Gulab Yadav the present petitioner, was present at the spot. (iii) He further submits that the court below has committed an error of record by recording the finding that there was blood stained in the seized cloth. (iv) He further submits that medical report does not support the case of rape and the present case has been filed against the petitioner due to political rivalry as he happens to be Pramukh. (v) He further submits that the court below ought to have exercised the power and ought to have discharged the petitioner from the malicious prosecution. 6. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10692 of 2011 (3) dt.25-09-2012 4 opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that at this stage the court below is not required to make meticulously examination but only strong suspicion is sufficient for framing of the charge. He has further submitted that the court below has referred different paragraphs of the case diary and learned counsel for the petitioner has accepted the fact that some of the witnesses have named the petitioner which itself shows strong suspicion and so far finding of the court below about the blood stained in the seized cloth and medical report not suggesting rape is concerned, he has submitted that these are matters which will be looked into at the stage of trial. At the present stage the court below will not exercise the power about this aspect as it will amount to mini trial. 7. Having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no merit in the present case as the court below has quoted different paragraphs of the case diary and has come to the conclusion that strong suspicion has been made out against the petitioner. This Court also examined different paragraphs of the case diary, the name of the petitioner surfaced during investigation and accordingly this Court finds that there is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10692 of 2011 (3) dt.25-09-2012 5 no error in the court below. Even if there are some errors in the order the same can not be a ground for interference. With regard to examination of the Doctor regarding non commission of rape these are matters of trial and it can not be seen at this stage. However, the court below will not be prejudiced by the present order. 8. Before parting with the judgment counsel for the petitioner pointed out the real perpetrator Mota Moch Wala who has committed the rape have been moving freely and the police has not taken any efforts and steps to identify and arrest the real perpetrator. The police is directed to nab the real perpetrator (Mota Mochh Wala) of crim

Applicable IPC Section: 342

Statute Text:
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongfully confining any person. Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.