Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.43615 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Mangal Yadav son of late Saryug Yadav 2. Indrashan Yadav 3. Tezu Yadav 4. Dhanilal Yadav 5. Mannulal Yadav 6. Dinesh Yadav 7. Dhoda Yadav 8. Bhusa Yadav all sons of Mangal Yadav, all r/o village- Chhardawali, Belwa Tola, P.S. Sathi, Distt-West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Kumar Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Anita Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 3 02-04-2012 Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner and taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP for the State. 3. Earlier Sanjay Kumar Raut O.P. No.2 had given his fardbeyan with regard to kidnapping of his father Nagdan Raut in the night of 6/7.1.2007 for which Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 2/2007 was registered and subsequently, as is evident, during course of investigation the case was found untrue resulting submission of final report. Not only this the police had on its own registered Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 16/2007 under [STATUTE] wherein after concluding investigation Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43615 of 2010 (3) dt.02-04-2012 2 charge sheet has been submitted. 4. During intervening period O.P. No.2 had filed a protest petition which was subsequently treated as protest petition after acceptance of final report submitted by the police. The complaint was transferred to a competent court for an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. whereunder apart from other witnesses victim has also been examined and who had supported the factum of kidnapping/abduction. 5. Contention on behalf of the petitioners is that instant case is nothing but has been filed out of vengeance as both the parties are on litigating terms on account of land dispute. Further submitted that in the aforesaid background earlier complainant had filed a case wherein they were acquitted. Also submitted that from the narration of the complaint as well as from the statement of witnesses it is evident that no case is made out and so police rightly submitted final report. Also submitted that the victim was not produced before the police during course of investigation. 6. Also submitted that the disclosure made by the victim is not at all convincible and reliable because of the fact that none of the miscreant will spare the victim in case he was made captive for criminal purpose. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43615 of 2010 (3) dt.02-04-2012 3 7. Learned Additional P.P. opposed the prayer. 8. Meticulous examination of the statement of the witnesses like the trial court is not at all permissible at the stage of summoning of accused under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. The law also prescribes only formation of an opinion on the basis of materials whatever been produced by the complainant during course of enquiry. As such, scrutiny of the evidence of statement of witness like a trial court at the present stage is non permissible. 9. Enmity is a double edged sword. It might be a reason for false implication. On the other hand it should be a ground for commission of offence. The status and veracity of statement of the witnesses is the matter of trial. Therefore, for the present, I do not see it a fit case wherein the order of cognizance should be interfered with. Accordingly, petition is rejected. 10. However, it will be open to the petitioner to raise the plea in his defence whatever been raised at the present stage. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 193

Statute Text:
Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.