Jharkhand High Court
Rana Umesh Kumar Singh @ Rana Umesh Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr. on 3 August, 2011
Author: Prashant Kumar
Bench: Prashant Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1441 of 2007
Rana Umesh Kumar Singh @ Rana Umesh Singh.. ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Smt. Seema Hembrom Opp. Party
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon
For the State : Mr. M.B. Lal (A.P.P.)
For the O.P. No.-2 Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra
ORDER
9/03.08.2011This application has been filed against the order dated 10.09.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag in T. R. No. 1313 of 2007 whereby learned court below took cognizance of the offences under Sections 467/468/471 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
It is alleged that petitioner, who is Circle Inspector, gave false report for issuance of false certificate of genealogy of complainant's family. It is alleged that petitioner also submitted false report to the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh on the basis of which permission for transfer of land accorded . It is submitted by Sri Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner is Circle Inspector and his appointing authority is State Government. Therefore no court can take cognizance against the petitioner without previous sanction from the State Government. It is further submitted that petitioner made query and reported the matter to Additional Collector in compliance of direction given in Permission Case No. 57 of 2006. Thus said report will be treated as a finding of Court, hence no private complaint can be filed against petitioner. It is further submitted that dispute between complainant and her sister is a civil dispute, thus on this ground also impugned order is bad.
Sri Awanish Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that from perusal of Annexure-8 it is clear that appointing authority of petitioner is Secretary of Revenue and Land Reforms Department. Hence provisions of Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. have no application in the facts of this case. It is further submitted that petitioner gave report to the Circle Officer as well as to the Additional Collector in the capacity of Circle Inspector and while doing so he had not acted as court. Hence second submission raised on behalf of petitioner cannot be accepted. It is submitted that allegation in the complaint petition is that petitioner in connivance of co-accused Sarita Hembrom gave false report for preparation of genealogy certificate, thus contention raised that dispute between the parties is civil dispute appears to be misconceived. It is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, hence no interference required.
Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of case. Admittedly, petitioner was working as Circle Inspector. From perusal of Annexure-6 it appears that he was appointed by the order of Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. From perusal of Annexure-8 it appears that previously cadre of Circle Inspector was at the level of Commissionery. However on the demand of Employees Union, State Government took certain decision and on the basis of same cadre of Circle Inspector made centralised at the State level. Annexure-8 makes it clear that appointing authority of Circle Inspector will be Secretary of Revenue and Land Reforms Department. Under the aforesaid circumstance, it is clear that even today, appointing authority of petitioner is Secretary of Revenue and Land Reforms Department of Government of Jharkhand. Hence under the law, petitioner can be removed by Secretary of concern department, for which, approval of State Government is not required. Under the said circumstance, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no application in this case.
So far second point raised by Sri Manoj Tandon is concerned, it is worth mentioning that application of permission for transfer of land was filed before the Additional Collector, Hazaribag under the Chhotnagpur Tenancy Act and in that application a report was called by the Additional Collector regarding the genealogy of applicant Sarita Hembrom. It is worth mentioning that function of Additional Collector under Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act is administrative function and not judicial function. Additional Collector is required to give permission for transfer of land in his administrative capacity. Thus contention raised by petitioner that he send report in exercise of power confer by court cannot be accepted. Moreover even if it is assumed that petitioner gave report on the basis of order passed by a court it does not give power to petitioner to submit a false report in connivance of co-accused. Thus second contention of Sri Manoj Tandon also appears to be misconceived.
It is relevant to mention that allegation against petitioner that he took illegal gratification from co-accused Sarita Hembrom and prepared a false report for issuance of genealogy certificate by Circle Officer. Thus prima-facie I find that offences under Sections 467/468/471 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code is made out.
Hence I find no illegality in the impugned order.
Accordingly this application is dismissed.
(Prashant Kumar, J.) Binit