Manipur High Court
Khuraijam Inaocha Singh vs The Secretary on 30 August, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Sanjay Kumar
Digitally signed
LAIRENM by
LAIRENMAYUM
AYUM INDRAJEET
INDRAJE SINGH
Date: IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
ET SINGH 2022.08.30
15:00:22 +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
CRIL. PETN. No. 45 of 2021
Khuraijam Inaocha Singh, S/o (L) Kh. Ningthou Singh, aged about 57
years, of Tengdongyan P.O. & P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
....... Petitioner
- Versus -
The Secretary, School Managing Committee, Loktak Christian Model
High School, Moirang P.O. & P.S. Moirang, Bishnupur District, Manipur.
.... Respondent
with CRIL. PETN. No. 15 of 2022 Khuraijam Surajkumar Singh, S/o (L) Kh. Nilakumar Singh, aged about 49 years, resident of Moirang Mission Compound, near Moirang Police Station, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, Bishnupur District, Manipur.
....... Petitioner
- Versus -
The Secretary, School Managing Committee, Loktak Christian Model High School, Moirang P.O. & P.S. Moirang, Bishnupur District, Manipur .... Respondent BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR For the petitioners : Mr. M. Ibohal, Advocate & Mr. M. Ajitkevin, Advocate.
For the respondent : Ms. N. Elizabeth, Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 23.08.2022
Date of Judgment & Order : 30.08.2022
2
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
[1] A complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was filed by Kh. Rajenkumar
Singh, in the capacity of being the Secretary, School Managing Committee, Loktak Christian Model High School, Moirang, District - Bishnupur, against Khuraijam Surajkumar Singh and Khuraijam Inaocha Singh, alleging that they had committed certain criminal offences. This complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur on 04.09.2021. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur, made over the said complaint to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bishnupur (for brevity, 'the learned Magistrate'), on the same day. The learned Magistrate heard the learned counsel for the complainant on 06.09.2021 through video conferencing and directed the complaint to be registered as Cril. (C) Case No. 3 of 2021. The matter was adjourned to 20.09.2021 for examination of the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C. On 20.09.2021, the complainant was present through video conferencing along with his counsel and was examined on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate adjourned the matter to 29.09.2021 for recording the statements of the complainant's witnesses. On 29.09.2021, Kshetrimayum Prakashkanta Singh (Complainant Witness No. 2) and Pukhram Kishorchand Singh (Complainant Witness No. 3) were present through video conferencing and their statements were recorded. The matter was adjourned to 01.10.2021 for cognizance hearing. On that day, the learned Magistrate heard the learned counsel for the complainant and upon perusing the material on record, including the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, the learned Magistrate held that sufficient grounds were made out to proceed against the accused persons. Cognizance was 3 accordingly taken for commission of offences under Sections 447, 419 and 506 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. Summons were directed to be issued to the accused persons, returnable on 14.10.2021. On 14.10.2021, the learned Magistrate noted that the summons were returned served and that both the accused were represented by learned counsel, who had filed their vakalatnama, and adjourned the matter to 27.10.2021 to enable relevant papers to be served upon the accused. [2] Aggrieved by the entertainment of the complaint case and the orders passed therein by the learned Magistrate, the accused filed the present criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the same. Cril. Petn. No. 45 of 2021 was filed by Khuraijam Inaocha Singh while Cril. Petn. No. 15 of 2022 was filed by Khuraijam Surajkumar Singh.
[3] Heard Mr. M. Ajitkevin, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners in both the cases; and Ms. N. Elizabeth, learned counsel for the respondent. [4] In his complaint, Kh. Rajenkumar Singh, as the Secretary of Loktak Christian Model High School (for brevity 'the School'), had stated thus: The School was sponsored by the Meitei Presbyterian Shinglup (MPS) Synod under the Presbyterian Church of India (PCI). The School had its own Manual according to which the School Managing Committee was to run it, and its powers and functions were provided in Para 13(G) of the Manual. Both the accused had been Ministers of the PCI at an earlier point of time but on 21.02.2020, the Executive Committee of the PCI resolved to derecognize them. Therefore, they were not Ministers of the PCI after that date. However, Khuraijam Inaocha Singh, posing as the Executive Secretary of the MPS Synod, filed two suits, viz., O.S No. 29 of 2020 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal West, and O.S. No. 1 of 4 2021 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bishnupur, in connection with the affairs of the PCI and the School respectively, but chose to get the suits dismissed as not pressed on 04.02.2021 and 08.02.2021 respectively. Both the accused tried to interfere with the affairs of the School. Khuraijam Surajkumar Singh, posing as the Principal of the School, entered the premises of the School on 19.08.2021 and affixed a notice on the gate of the School, informing the parents that on-line classes had ceased. Khuraijam Inaocha Singh issued Notice dated 21.08.2021, posing as the Executive Secretary of the MPS Synod, calling for a meeting of teaching and non-teaching staff of the School. He threatened the teaching and non-teaching staff with dire consequences if they failed to comply with the notice. He also issued letter dated 21.08.2021 to Kh. Rajenkumar Singh informing him that his services as Principal had been extended until further order and to submit his joining report on or before 10.09.2021. The accused therefore committed criminal trespass and intimidated teaching and non-teaching staff of the School, thereby committing offences punishable under Section 447 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Having considered the illegal activities of the accused in an emergency meeting held on 26.08.2021, the School Managing Committee resolved to file a complaint petition against them and, accordingly, Kh. Rajenkumar Singh, the Secretary of the School Managing Committee, was asked to do the needful. The subject complaint case was filed praying that cognizance be taken for commission of offences by the accused, punishable under Sections 447, 506, 416 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and to punish them accordingly. [5] When Cril. Petn. No. 45 of 2021 was taken up for hearing on 17.02.2022, Mr. M. Ibohal, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Ajitkevin, learned 5 counsel, appeared for the petitioners and informed this Court that the complaint had been filed by Kh. Rajenkumar Singh claiming to be the Secretary of the School Managing Committee of the School, under the Order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Zonal Education Officer (ZEO), Zone-IV(B), Government of Manipur, but the said order was cancelled thereafter by the very same ZEO under Order dated 05.10.2021. Learned counsel therefore argued that the complaint filed by him could not be acted upon. Ms. N. Elizabeth, learned counsel for the respondent, sought time to ascertain whether Kh. Rajenkumar Singh was independently appointed as the Secretary of the School Managing Committee and if so, produce the orders passed in that regard. As the core issue whether the respondent could continue to maintain the complaint case before the learned Magistrate required to be resolved, this Court granted stay of further proceedings in Cril. (C) Case No. 3 of 2021 on the file of the learned Magistrate until the next date of hearing. However, on 17.03.2022, Ms. N. Elizabeth, learned counsel, placed on record a copy of the Order dated 11.11.2021 issued by the School constituting the School Managing Committee and therein, Kh. Rajenkumar Singh, who had filed the subject complaint, was shown as the Secretary of the School Managing Committee. In the light of this document, this Court found no reason to extend the stay granted on 17.02.2022 and vacated the same.
[6] At this stage, the controversy with regard to the orders passed by the ZEO, Zone-IV (B), Government of Manipur, may be addressed. By the earlier Order dated 22.01.2020, the ZEO had approved the newly constituted School Managing Committee of the School for a period of 3(three) years. Therein, the details of the members of the Committee were furnished in a tabular form. Kh. Rajenkumar 6 Singh was shown as the Secretary/Principal. The later Order dated 05.10.2021 was issued by the ZEO, noting that there were no government guidelines as to how School Managing Committees of private schools should be constituted and approved by the concerned authorities and more particularly, the ZEO, and as Loktak Christian Model High School, Moirang, was a privately run school, its school management must be constituted as per its own norms. In view of this fact, the ZEO cancelled the earlier Order dated 22.01.2020 issued by him, approving the constitution of the School Managing Committee of the School. The cancellation order was therefore of no real significance.
[7] The School was established on 01.04.1967 and was recognized by the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, on 01.01.1981. It is looked after by the MPS Synod under the Meitei Presbytery Society (Regn. No. 161/M/SR/2001). The Manual of the School provides for the management, administration and conduct of its affairs. The Manual provides, under Para 12, that there should be a School Managing Committee, which would be the sole authority to run and manage the overall day-to-day affairs for the smooth running of the School and it would deal with all matters of the School, both internal as well as external. As per Para 13, the Committee is to consist of 14 members. One of the members mentioned therein is the Principal of the School who would, by designation, be the Secretary of the Committee. The powers and functions of the Committee are detailed in Para 13 (G). Sub-para (i) thereof empowers the Committee to administer the School in accordance with the general policy laid down in the School Manual. Para 13 (H) details the functions of the President; Principal and Secretary; Vice President and 7 the Vice Principal, as members of the Committee. Para 13(H)(xix) requires the Secretary of the Committee to carry out any matter entrusted by the Committee. [8] It is in this factual milieu that these quash petitions would have to be considered. In Cril. Petn. No. 45 of 2021, the petitioner therein claimed that he was the President of Meitei Presbytery Society and the Executive Secretary of the MPS Synod. He stated that the Meitei Presbytery Society was the owner of the School and that it was a purely private school. He raised a dispute with regard to the constitution of the School Managing Committee of the School which was approved by the ZEO, vide Order dated 22.01.2020. He referred to the cancellation of the said order by the ZEO on 05.10.2021 and asserted that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance on the strength of the complaint filed by Kh. Rajenkumar Singh, as he was not the Secretary of the School Managing Committee, after the cancellation order dated 05.10.2021. Essentially, this was the ground taken by him to seek quashing of the complaint case and the orders passed therein.
In Cril. Petn. No. 15 of 2022, the petitioner therein claimed that he was the Principal of the School, appointed by the Executive Committee of MPS Synod, through its Executive Secretary, viz., Accused No. 2, who was also the Executive Secretary of the MPS Synod. He stated that a complaint had earlier been made to the Officer-In-Charge, Moirang Police Station, against both the accused and they were summoned to the police station on 11.09.2021. According to him, the police found no grounds to register a criminal case against them. He asserted that, by concealing this fact, the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate was pleased to pass orders thereon, taking 8 cognizance of the offences allegedly committed. The petitioner further asserted that the ingredients of the alleged offences were not even made out and, therefore, this Court should exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the complaint case and the orders passed therein.
[9] In his affidavits-in-opposition, Kh. Rajenkumar Singh, deposing as the Secretary of the School Managing Committee of the School, stated as follows: The accused, being ordained Ministers of the PCI, held office in the MPS Synod but due to their acts, adverse to the interest of the PCI, they were derecognized. Owing to their illegal acts, the PCI passed a resolution at its Executive Meetings held on 08.08.2018 and 07.08.2019 to set up a High Power Committee to look into the matter. On 21.02.2020, the Executive Committee of the PCI passed a resolution to derecognize the accused. Reference was made to the original suits filed by Khuraijam Inaocha Singh and the dismissal thereof, upon abandonment. Reference was also made to the error committed in seeking the approval of the ZEO, Zone-IV(B), Government of Manipur, for the constitution of the School Managing Committee and the cancellation thereof, vide Order dated 05.10.2021. Thereafter, the MPS Synod constituted a new School Managing Committee, vide Order dated 06.12.2021 of the Executive Secretary, MPS Synod, basing on the letter dated 11.11.2021 of the Principal of the School. The School was stated to be running under the newly reconstituted School Managing Committee. The Senior Administrative Secretary, PCI, issued Notification dated 14.02.2022, stating that the PCI recognized Kh. Rajenkumar Singh as the Principal-cum-Secretary of the School Managing Committee of the School. The contents of the complaint were reiterated and it was prayed that the petitions be dismissed. 9 [10] A copy of the letter dated 11.11.2021 issued by Kh. Rajenkumar Singh, as the Principal of the School, detailing the reconstitution of the School Managing Committee after issuance of the Order dated 05.10.2021 by the ZEO, Zone-IV(B), Government of Manipur, is placed on record. Therein, he requested the Executive Secretary, MPS Synod, to approve the same. Pursuant thereto, the Executive Secretary, MPS Synod, informed the Principal of the School, vide letter dated 06.12.2021, that the reconstitution of the School Managing Committee had been approved by the MPS Synod. Thereafter, the Senior Administrative Secretary, PCI, issued Notification dated 14.02.2022, stating that the PCI still recognized Kh. Rajenkumar Singh as the Principal-cum-Secretary of the School Managing Committee of the School. These documents are also placed on record. [11] The aforestated facts indicate that there appears to be some fallout within the Meitei Presbytery Society and the petitioners herein seem to have fallen out of favour with the PCI, which is the principal body. However, those issues are not of relevance. All that is required to be examined presently is whether the complaint case before the learned Magistrate is maintainable or it deserves to be quashed by this Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [12] At this stage, it may be noted that the filing of such a complaint case would not be barred merely because the police failed to register a criminal case upon an earlier complaint made to them on the same lines. Independent thereof, a complainant would be entitled to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Further, though it has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Magistrate failed to follow the due procedure, this Court finds no merit in the said contention. According to the petitioner in Cril. Petn. No. 45 of 10 2021, the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 06.09.2021 and again on 01.10.2021. However, it may be noted that the order dated 06.09.2021 does not even reflect the word 'cognizance' and the learned Magistrate merely perused the complaint petition and the documents filed therewith on that day and directed the complaint to be registered as Cril. (C) Case No. 3 of 2021. Mere numbering of the case does not amount to taking cognizance. It was only on 01.10.2021 that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences and directed issuance of summons to the accused. Therefore, there is no irregularity in procedure. [13] As already stated supra, the main ground raised by the petitioner in Cril. Petn. No. 45 of 2021 was that Kh. Rajenkumar Singh ceased to be the Secretary of the School Managing Committee and was therefore not competent to maintain the complaint case before the learned Magistrate. However, this ground no longer survives for consideration in the light of the documents placed before this Court, clearly evidencing that Kh. Rajenkumar Singh continues to be the Secretary of the School Managing Committee of the School. In that capacity, he was duly authorized by the School Managing Committee to file a complaint before the learned Magistrate.
Though it was also argued that the complaint was not maintainable as it was filed by the School Managing Committee, an incorporeal body, it may be noticed that the complaint was filed by the Secretary of the School Managing Committee and not the School Managing Committee itself. In Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. Keshvanand [AIR 1998 SC 596], the Supreme Court observed that a complainant in a complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. must be a corporeal person who is capable of making physical presence in the Court 11 and, therefore, even if a complaint is made in the name of an incorporeal person, like a company or corporation, it would be necessary that a natural person represents such juristic person in the Court and it is that natural person who is looked upon, for all practical purposes, to be the complainant in the case. Applying this principle, the Secretary of the School Managing Committee, being a designated person, is fully capable of making a physical presence in the Court. Therefore, this judgment is of no avail to the petitioners. [14] It is the contention of the petitioner in Cril. Petn. No. 15 of 2022 that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not even made out. Reliance is placed upon State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others [AIR 1992 SC 604]. Therein, the Supreme Court observed that, where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused or if the allegations in the F.I.R. and other materials do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police, the High Court should exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the same, so as to prevent abuse of process. Similar were the observations made by the Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another [AIR 2017 SC 4843] and again in Salimbhai Hamidbhai Menon vs. Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel and another [AIR 2021 SC 4109]. Therein, the Supreme Court also observed that, distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute and they would stand on a distinct footing, in so far as exercise of inherent power to quash is concerned. 12 However, as already noted supra, specific allegations were made by the Secretary of the School Managing Committee as to how the accused tried to interfere with the affairs of the School. These allegations, if proved, would undoubtedly constitute the offences alleged. The allegations would therefore require to be tested by way of a proper trial, so as to ascertain whether the accused committed such offences, warranting action against them under law. This is therefore not a case where the complaint does not reflect a prima facie case. That being so, it is not for this Court at this stage to decide whether the accused committed the offences alleged against them. It would be for the learned Magistrate to decide the same after a full-fledged trial. Further, having chosen to approach the Civil Court, Accused No. 2 himself got dismissed the original suits filed by him as not pressed. Therefore, this is not a fit case for application of the aforestated principle or for exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [15] On the above analysis, this Court finds no grounds made out to quash either the subject complaint case or the orders passed therein.
Cril. Petn. No. 45 of 2021 and Cril. Petn. No. 15 of 2022 are accordingly dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE FR/NFR Indrajeet