Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.24073 of 2007 =========================================================== 1. Girija Prasad Singh, S/o late Jagdhar Prasad Singh. 2. Awnish Kumar Singh, S/o Girija Prasad Singh. Both residents of Lakhisarai, P.S.-Lakhisarai, District-Lakhisarai. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Nawal Kishore Chaudhary, S/o late Arjun Prasad Chaudhary, resident of Mohalla-Shivpuri, P.S.-K. Hat, District-Purnea. .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amish Kumar, Adv. For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Dr.Bidhu Ranjan, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH C.A.V. JUDGMENT Date: 18-06-2012 Heard Mr. Amish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned A.P.P for the State. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 12.6.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea by which finding a prima facie case to be made out under [STATUTE] , he has ordered for issuance of summons against the petitioners. The instant case was instituted on the basis of a complaint registered by the Opposite Party No.2. In the complaint besides the two petitioners Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24073 of 2007 dt.18.06.2012 2 / 10 2 who are father and son respectively, one Rajesh Tiwari, a Sub-Inspector of K.Hat Sahaik Police Station was made named accused. It has been alleged that the complainant‟s elder son Pawan Kumar Choudhary was married to Priyanka Devi and after the marriage, both of them were residing with the complainant Nawal Kishore Choudhary in Mohalla-Shivpuri, P.S.-K. Hat. The complainant‟s wife had died two years ago and all the belongings, clothes and ornaments were in possession of Priyanka Devi. Priyanka Devi was also keeping cash regularly handed over to her by the complainant and her husband but she developed a habit of shifting the valuables and cash to her parent‟s house in spite of repeated protest made by the complainant. It is alleged that in the night of 11.10.2003, the petitioners and others being variously armed with pistol and gun came on two vehicles, barged into the house of the complainant, locked him and his sons in a room on the point of firearm collected Rs. 40,500/- in cash which was kept with Priyanka Devi, ornaments worth Rs. 2,50,000/- as well as valuable documents, utensils and costly clothes. The operation continued for the whole of the night and early in the morning. It is further alleged that petitioner no. 1 went out and came back along with the Officer-in-Charge of K. Hat Police Station. The complainant and his family members narrated about the occurrence to the co-accused Rajesh Tiwari, Officer-in-Charge of K. Hat Police Station but he paid no heed to their complain. At his instance, the accused persons carried the looted articles kept in 23 trunks, suit cases and bags on two vehicles. The complainant and his sons were also taken to the Police Station. The complainant and his sons were thereafter apprehended and remanded in connection with K. Hat P.S. Case No. 331 of 2003 instituted by Priyanka Devi, daughter of petitioner no.1. The complainant alleged that co- accused Rajesh Tiwari made no effort either to seize the un-licensed arms retained Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24073 of 2007 dt.18.06.2012 3 / 10 3 by the petitioners or to apprehend them. He claims that local people witnessed the occurrence. The complaint was filed on 13.10.2003 while the complainant was in judicial custody. On 14.10.2003, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. In his statement on oath, he has supported the statement made in the complaint. In reply to the court‟s question, he admits that his son is still in custody in connection with the case instituted by his daughter-in-law. In course of inquiry some other witnesses were also examined. However, by order dated 20.5.2004, the learned C.J.M., Purnea held that cognizance in the case cannot be taken in absence of sanction order as co-accused Rajesh Tiwari was an Office-in-Charge of the police station at the relevant time and he had apprehended the complainant and his son in discharge of his official duty. The complainant, thereafter, filed a petition in the court of learned C.J.M., Purnea and prayed to reconsider the matter and pass order afresh on the point of cognizance. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the said petition observing that the order dated 20.5.2004 was a reasoned order passed after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The complainant, thereafter, filed two separate petitions on 8.7.2004 and 25.8.2004 along with case laws and prayed again to reconsider the matter afresh and pass necessary orders on the point of cognizance in the court of learned C.J.M., Purnea. The learned C.J.M., after hearing the complainant, dismissed both the petitions by order dated 31.8.2004 and directed the record to be placed again after producing sanction order by the complainant. The complainant, thereafter, filed a criminal revision against the order dated 31.8.2004 passed by the learned C.J.M., Purnea by which he had Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24073 of 2007 dt.18.06.2012 4 / 10 4 deferred to pass order on the point of cognizance till filing of sanction order by the complainant as one of the accused namely Rajesh Tiwari happened to be the Officer-in-Charge of K.Hat Sahaik Police Station in the district of Purnea at the time of alleged occurrence. The matter was heard by the learned 1st A.D.J., Purnea, who by his order dated 21.2.2006 allowed the revision application and set aside the order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the learned

Applicable IPC Section: 395

Statute Text:
Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Dacoity. Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.