Jharkhand High Court
Savitri Devi @ Sabitri Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 January, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1886 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1886 of 2016
Savitri Devi @ Sabitri Devi ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Gopal Rajak ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.
-----
04/24.01.2024 Heard Ms. Sonal Sodhani, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State. Notice upon opposite party no.2 has been effected, however, nobody has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.04.2016 in connection with Protest cum P.C.R. Case No.230/2014 arising out of G.R. No.795/2012, corresponding to P.C.R. Case No.307/2012, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara.
3. Earlier P.C.R. Case No.307/2012 was filed, which was later on registered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as Karmatand P.S. Case No.66/2012. The said complaint case was filed by one Gopal Rajak, who was a social worker of Gram Panchayat, Karmatanr of Jamtara Block. It was alleged in the said complaint case that a Government Scheme under Education Department, Jharkhand State Gram Shiksha Samittee was to be constituted in the Village Nimadih to start a primary school at Nimadih and the present petitioner was selected as Secretary. It was further alleged that in the year 2002, a general Aam Sabha was held in the Village Nimadih to select the Sanyojika of the said Gram Shiksha Samittee and accordinly accused no.1 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1886 of 2016 (petitioner) presented the School Certificate of Bihar School Examination Board of the year 1995 and on that basis, she was selected as the Secretary cum Para Teacher of the said school. It was also alleged in the said complaint case that as per the Government circular, the minimum qualification of the said post a para teacher is Intermediate and, accordingly, the petitioner was alleged to have forged some documents of certificate of Intermediate of Deoghar Vidyapith of the year 2006. It was further alleged that apart from the school management, the said school is being run separately as Saraswati Vahini and the accused (petitioner) has misused the fund of the said school. The prime allegation against the present petitioner was that she had forged the certificate to gain the said job. In that case, the police has investigated the case and submitted final form in favour of the present petitioner and after submission of final form, the present protest petition being Protest cum P.C.R. Case No.230/2012 was filed by the complainant.
4. Ms. Sodhani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier complaint case was filed by the complainant, which was sent by the learned Court for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and, thereafter, the police has investigated the case and submitted final form, whereby, the petitioner has not been sent up for trial and pursuant to that, the present protest case was filed by the complainant, in which, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner. She submits that no ground and reason of differing with the final form, has been disclosed in the impugned order taking cognizance and in view of that, the impugned order is bad in law.
5. Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1886 of 2016 Court is competent to pass such order on protest petition when materials are there and the order is cogent one. He submits that no interference is required by this Court.
6. It is an admitted position that final form was submitted, whereby, the petitioner was not sent up for trial, however, on the protest petition, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance. It is well settled that in the case where the final form is submitted, the learned Court is having four options:-
(i) He may agree with the conclusion of the police and accept the final report and drop the proceeding.
(ii) He may take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC and issue process straightaway to the accused without being bound by the conclusion of the investigating agency where he is satisfied that upon the facts discovered by the police, there is sufficient ground to proceed.
(iii) He may order for further investigation if he is satisfied that the investigation was made in a perfunctory manner.
(iv) He may without issuing process and dropping the proceedings under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC upon the original complaint or protest petition treating the same as complaint and proceed to act under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and thereafter whether complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued.
7. The learned Court has looked into the solemn affirmation as well as enquiry witnesses and, thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. The Court has perused the impugned order and finds that it is an elaborate order. It has been disclosed in the impugned order that in the certificate, 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1886 of 2016 the year of passing has been shown as that of 2006, whereas, the admit card of the said examination is of the year 2007 and the allegations are there that on the basis of forged certificate, the petitioner has been appointed as para teacher she was regularly taking salary as para teacher cum Secretary of Utkramit Vidyalaya, Nimadih.
8. In view of the above facts, there is no illegality in the impugned order.
9. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/