IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.31303 OF 2008 1) SUNIL KUMAR JHA, SON OF LATE SHANKAR DUTT JHA, VILLAGE JHAGIHAT, TOLA HARDIA, PS PUPRI, DIST. SITAMARHI, PRESENTLY AT KRISHNA APARTMENT, KRISHNA NAGAR, PS RK PURAM, NEW DELHI. 2) SUDHIR KUMAR JHA, SON OF LATE SHANKAR DUTT JHA, VILLAGE JHAGIHAT, TOLA HARDIA, PS PUPRI, DIST. SITAMARHI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PROFESSOR’S COLONY, BIRTA, BIRGANJ, NEPAL ………………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VS. 1) THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2) SMT. MANORAMA DEVI, WIFE OF SUSHIL JHA, RESIDENT OF JHAJHIHAT, TOLE HARDIA, PS PUPRI, DIST. SITAMARHI ……………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES 3 28.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 17.5.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No. 310C/2006 by which cognizance has been taken under sections 323, 365, 379 and 504 of the Penal Code. In order to demonstrate that this is a completely unbelievable case, it would be necessary for this court to state the facts as set out in the complaint case. The prosecution case shortly stated is that on 5.2.2006 at about 6 P.M. about ten persons including the accused came to the house of the complainant and assaulted her husband and indulged in acts of ‘loot’. On 7.2.2006 the police tried to settle the matter between the parties. After the police left it 2 is alleged that the petitioners along with others again went to the house of the complainant and threatened her. It is further alleged, which forms the main part of the allegation, that on 12.5.2006 the complainant states that her husband went to the ‘Bazar’ after which he did not return home. It is said that she gave information to the authorities concerned. On 11.10.2006 there was a newspaper report in newspaper Dainik Jaagran that the husband of the complainant is missing. After the news paper report was published, her husband returned home and is said to have informed her that he was kidnapped on 12.5.2006 from the Bazar. He has named several persons in the complaint petition who used to visit him during the period he was in custody of the petitioners. The complaint case was lodged on 27.12.2006 after the complainant’s husband was released from the custody. It is admitted in the complaint petition that the petitioners are the brothers of Sushil Jha, the complainant’s husband. Here, it may also be noted that the petitioner no. 1 Sunil Kumar Jha lives at Delhi and is the Director of a private company, 3 whereas petitioner no. 2 is the Professor teaching in a college at Nepal. Both of them have shown their addresses to be at Delhi and Nepal respectively. It is also admitted by the parties including the complainant that a title (partition) suit is pending between the family members. On bare perusal of the complaint petition as well as the statement taken on solemn affirmation, it would appear that the entire facts appear to be absurd and cannot be believed to be true by any reasonable man. It is completely unbelievable that on 05.02.2006, the petitioners who reside at Delhi and Nepal will come to their village home and create disturbance and then would repeat the act on 07.02.2006, after the police had visited the complainant’s house. Similarly, it is unbelievable that the complainant’s husband was kidnapped on 12.05.2006 and she lodged no case before the police or in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sitamarhi, alleging that her husband was missing. It is strange that in the background as stated in the complaint petition, she did not imagine that her husband was kidnapped by his brothers, although just a few days prior to the said act of kidnapping, they have allegedly entered into the house of the complainant and disturbed her and her husband and 4 looted away some articles of the house. It cannot be imagined that no action would have been taken by the wife or other close family members for two months and all of them waited until the husband returned home and thereafter, lodged this case, which appears to be false and fabricated. In the statement made under the solemn affirmation, the complainant’s husband has said that he has been kidnapped five times by the petitioners- his brothers and on each of the occasions on which he has been kidnapped, he was released. There is no prior case to the present application, there is no record to show that any case was instituted by the complainant’s husband Sushil Jha and his wife Manorama Devi, the present complainant. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that the main reason for lodging the present case is that the complainant apprehension that she would be disturbed by the petitioners and would not be allowed to reside at their ancestral house. The petitioners have given an undertaking before the Court that they would not disturb the complainant and her husband from residing in the ancestral property until the disposal of the title (partition) suit, and therefore, any apprehension on 5 behalf of the complainant on this count is completely misplaced. This Court after considering the complaint petition and the statement of the complainant us 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure comes to the conclusion that the case is absolutely false and is unbelievable and as such quashes the order of cognizance dated 17.05.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No. 310C of 2006. This application is accordingly allowed. Anand/ haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)