Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

M/S The Tata Iron & Steel Co.Ltd @ Tisco vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 September, 2009

Author: Prashant Kumar

Bench: Prashant Kumar

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr.M.P. No. 153 of 2005

    M/s The Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd @ TISCO            ...      Petitioner
                           Vs.
    1. The State of Jharkhand
    2. Jugal Kishore Jayasawal          ...    ...           Opposite Parties

    CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR

    For the Petitioner: M/s Indrajit Sinha, Rohit Roy, Kumar Vimal.
    For the State     : Mrs Anita Sinha, A.P.P.

                                    ...

4/02/09/2009

This is an application for quashing the order dated 27.11.2004 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 307 of 1989 corresponding to T.R. No. 54 of 2004 whereby and whereunder he had summoned the petitioner through Mr. Noor, the then Director of Collieries of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.

2. It appears that the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint petition in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh who, vide order dated 05.10.1989, sent the said complaint petition to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. However, the said order was recalled on 07.04.1992 and the complainant was examined on S.A. Thereafter the case was fixed for further inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. It then appears that co-accused filed an application in the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench vide Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3780 of 1992. It further appears that in the said application further proceeding of court below pertaining to Complaint Case No. 307 of 1989 has been stayed. However, it appears that the said criminal miscellaneous petition dismissed and the said order communicated to the court concerned on 09.08.1986. Thereafter, on completion of the inquiry learned court below concluded that prima facie case against the accused persons under Sections 379, 447 and 120B 2 [Cr.M.P. No. 153 of 2005] of the I.P.C. made out, thus it directed the office for issuance of process. It appears that thereafter again an application filed before the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench vide Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 3282 of 1997. Aforesaid appliction disposed of with a direction to the court below for passing appropriate order on petition of discharge if filed by the accused person. It appears that thereafter the case fixed for evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. However, on being pointed out by the complainant, it transpired to the court below that inspite of issuance of summon on 08.04.1997, accused no. 1 namely Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. through its Director of Collieries had not appeared, therefore the court below again issued summon against the petitioner vide order dated 27.11.2004.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no post of Director of Collieries in TISCO. It is further submitted that no offence is made out against the petitioner Mr. Noor, the then Director of Collieries, hence issuance of summon against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of court. It is also submitted that the cognizance taken by the court below is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. It is worth mentioning that the present application has been filed by the petitioner Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. through its Director of Collieries represented by its Attorney Mrs. Meena Lall. Under the said circumstance, the averment of petitioner that there is no post of Director of Collieries appears to be an afterthought, because if no post of Director of Collieries exist then how the TISCO filed this application through Director of Collieries. Thus the first submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected.

5. So far second contention that no case is made out against this petitioner, it is relevant to mention that the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 3282 of 1997 (R) had given liberty to the petitioner for filing a discharge petition at the appropriate stage and directed the court below to pass order on the said discharge petition. Thus, the petitioner has ample opportunity to ventilate its grievance in the learned court below by filing an application for discharge at the appropriate stage i.e. after completion of evidence under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C.

6. So far the third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of cognizance is barred by limitation as per provisions contained under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., it is relevant to mention that the order by which cognizance has been taken has not been challenged in this case. Moreover, the day on which the cognizance was taken has not been stated by the petitioner in this application. It further appears that Patna High Court Ranchi Bench stayed the proceeding from 1992 to 09.08.1996. It is also not stated in this application that against which order Cr. Misc. No 3780 of 1992 has been filed. It is also not mentioned in the complaint petition as to when Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh transferred the case in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whether it is after issuance of process or before. Thus, in the absence of foundational fact, it cannot be held that the order by which cognizance was taken is barred by limitation.

7. As noticed above by the impugned order, the court below had issued summon for appearance of the petitioner, I find no illegality in it. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this case, the same is dismissed.

(Prashant Kumar, J.) Sunil/N.A.F.R.