IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.445 of 2008 1. PARMANAND SINGH @ PARMA SINGH, SON OF LATE BADO SINGH. 2. SUBASH SINGH @ PRITAM SINGH @ PINTAM KUMAR, SON OF SRI RAMANAND SINGH 3. RAJU SINGH @ RAJU KUMAR SINGH, SON OF PARMANAND SINGH @ PARMA SINGH 4. NIRMAL KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI RAMANAND SINGH ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE HARPUR BOCHAHA, P.S. VIDYAPATINAGAR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. --- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DULARI DEVI, WIFE OF SRI GANESH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARPUR BOCHAHA, P.S. VIDYAPATINAGAR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. --- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 4 6.4.2010 Heard the parties. Originally a complaint petition was filed by the informant under Sections 323, 354, 457, 380 and 376(2)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was sent for investigation to the police. Police has submitted charge sheet under Section 323 and 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court has differed from the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer and on the basis of the complaint petition has proceeded to take cognizance under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. First of all when the Court has sent the case for investigation, it is presumed that the Court feels that the allegation require investigation by an independent authority and mere taking of statements of the complainant and her witnesses in Court would lead to a one sided picture, tilted in favour of the complainant. That is why the Courts have always held that an F.I.R. and investigation made by the police on a higher pedestal than the case which is filed in Court by way of a complaint. From the perusal of the complaint petition, the allegation is that in the year 2005, the accused no. 1 Parmanand Singh 2 committed rape, after threatening the complainant and continued to commit rape, after giving a threat that the children would be killed if the complainant refused to co-operate. Thereafter it is alleged that on the festival of Deepawali in the year 2005, again accused no. 2 and 3 raped the daughter of the complainant. On both occasions the complainant did not think it fit to file a case or inform her husband regarding the occurrence. Finally in the year 2006 it is said that a Panchayati held. Thereafter on 19.1.2006 it is alleged that the accused persons came, variously armed and surrounded the house of the complainant and threatened her. Further it is alleged that on 18.6.2006 the accused persons entered her house and assaulted her and took away valuable items which she had kept for marriage of her daughter. The complainant says that she left the village and filed the complaint petition. The investigation did not find the earlier part of the occurrence to be true i.e. the factum of rape with the complainant and the rape committed on her daughter. The story of rape appears to be absurd inasmuch as it is alleged that rape is committed in the year 2005 and the case has been instituted in the year 2006. It is apparently a concocted story in order to make the allegations serious. It can be said that the entire reason for the occurrence which is entering the house and assaulted the complainant/informant also becomes pretty doubtful in view of the fact that the earlier part of the occurrence is completely incredible and unbelievable. It is also absurd that it cannot be believed by any reasonable person that a man raped a lady for a period of one year, and 3 the lady did not protest regarding this matter. In any event, the Court has differed with the opinion of the Investigating Officer. No reason has been given for differing with the opinion of the Investigating Officer. I find that the order cannot be sustained, however, if charges have been framed in this case, then of course, it is too late now to interfere with the order of cognizance dated 1.12.2006. If charges have not been framed till today, the order dated 1.12.2006 is quashed and the case is remanded back to the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur to reconsider the matter in Vidyapatinagar P.S. Case No. 71 of 2006 giving rise to G.R. No. 355 of 2006. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)