Jharkhand High Court
Ram Shankar Singh @ Ramashankar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1 Cr.M.P. No. 702 of 2011
With
Cr.M.P. No. 918 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 702 of 2011
Ram Shankar Singh @ Ramashankar Singh ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Girjesh Kumar ... Opposite Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 918 of 2011
Deo Narayan Ranju @ D.N. Ranju ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Girjesh Kumar ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate (In Cr.M.P.-702/11) Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate (In Cr.M.P.-918/11) For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, S.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-702/11) Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, A.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-918/11) For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, Advocate (In both cases) Mr. Niladri Shekhar Mukherjee, Advocate
-----
18/06.12.2023 In both the cases, common question of facts and laws are involved and in view of that, both the cases have been heard together with consent of the parties.
2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.702 of 2011 and Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.918 of 2011, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned counsel for the State in Cr.M.P. No.702 of 2011 and Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State in Cr.M.P. No.918 of 2011 and Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in both the cases.
3. These petitions have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.P. No.1559 of 2010 including the order taking cognizance dated 25.03.2011, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 167 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code 2 Cr.M.P. No. 702 of 2011 With Cr.M.P. No. 918 of 2011 against the petitioners, pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad.
4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.702 of 2011, who was the Officer-in-Charge of Dhanbad Police Station has created incorrect station diary entry in violation of Jharkhand Police Manual Rule 116, which was created just to help one of his Captain Shittal Oraon in conspiracy with accused no.2-Deo Narayan Ranju @ D.N. Ranju (petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.918 of 2011), who was conducting the departmental proceeding against the complainant since the complainant had reported his misdeed to his superior authorities and on the basis of incorrect station diary entry, the complainant was declared guilty and ordered for compulsory retirement. It was further alleged that the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.702 of 2011 has created the said station diary entry in violation of the Rules. It was also alleged that there is change in the entry number of the station diary. It was further alleged that the only motive behind this is to cause injury to the complainant.
5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.702 of 2011 submits that the petitioner-Ram Shankar Singh @ Ramashankar Singh was the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station at Dhanbad. Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.918 of 2011 submits that the petitioner-Deo Narayan Ranju @ D.N. Ranju was the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he was posted at Dhanbad. They submit that the alleged date of occurrence is 18.03.2008, whereas, the present complaint case has been filed on 26.08.2010. They further submit that false allegations are made in the complaint petition that 3 Cr.M.P. No. 702 of 2011 With Cr.M.P. No. 918 of 2011 false entry in the station diary was made by Ram Shankar Singh @ Ramashankar Singh, who was the Officer-in-Charge. They also submit that the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the complainant and the said departmental proceeding was challenged by opposite party no.2 before this Court in the writ petition which was dismissed. They further submit that at any point of time, the said entry was not challenged by opposite party no.2 either before any competent Court of law or in a departmental proceeding. Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner adds further point by way of submitted that the petitioner-Deo Narayan Ranju @ D.N. Ranju was the only Inquiry Officer and he was given his finding and because of that, the said Inquiry Officer has been made accused in the present complaint case. They further submit that the petitioners were discharging their official duty and in view of that they are protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C. They submit that maliciously the case has been filed against the petitioners.
6. Per contra, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are being resisted by Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 on the ground that on the false entry in the station diary, the opposite party no.2 was asked to compulsory retire. He submits that the delay cannot be a ground for quashing the entire criminal proceeding. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay and another v. L.R. Melwani and another , reported in AIR 1970 SC 962. He further submits that if the said act is not done with regard to official duty, Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not attracted. He 4 Cr.M.P. No. 702 of 2011 With Cr.M.P. No. 918 of 2011 relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal and another, reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 122.
7. Mr. Vishwanath Roy and Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State submit that the learned Court has rightly taken cognizance in view of the facts.
8. The Court has gone through the contents of the complaint petition. The allegations are made that wrong entry was made in the station diary. The occurrence is said to be of 18.03.2008, whereas, the complaint case was filed on 26.08.2010. It is admitted position that the said entry in the station diary was not challenged by opposite party no.2 before any competent authority or any competent Court of law.
9. Further, the writ petition filed by the complainant with regard to departmental proceeding was dismissed by this Court, however, that matter has travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration and the High Court again dismissed the writ petition and after that, the present complaint case has been filed. Again opposite party no.2 has moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by challenging the said order, which is still pending, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. The said station diary entry was provided to opposite party no.2 on 14.04.2008 along with Memo No.1018, which was duly received by opposite party no.2 and in spite of that, he has not challenged the same and subsequently, the complaint case has been filed.
5 Cr.M.P. No. 702 of 2011
With Cr.M.P. No. 918 of 2011
11. It has been disclosed that Complaint Case No.547 of 2008 was earlier filed by opposite party no.2 with the same allegations against the petitioner, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 10.08.2009.
12. Further, the petitioner-Deo Narayan Ranju @ D.N. Ranju was only the Inquiry Officer and in the departmental proceeding, he has given his opinion in the inquiry proceeding and the petitioner-Ram Shankar Singh @ Ramashankar Singh was the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station. Thus, it appears that the petitioners were discharging their official duty and if they are discharging official duty, they are protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
13. There is no doubt that if an act is not done in official capacity, Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not attracted, however, if the act has been done in official capacity, Section 197 Cr.P.C. is attracted. The facts as mentioned hereinabove, disclosed that the petitioners were discharging official duty. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Devi v. State of Rajasthan and another, reported in (2021) 8 SCC 768. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
"10. We have given our thought to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Section 197 CrPC seeks to protect an officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties and, thus, prohibits the court from taking cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. Public servants have been treated as a special category in order to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution. At the same time, the shield cannot protect corrupt officers and the provisions must be construed in such a manner as to advance the cause of honesty, justice and good governance. (See Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh [Subramanian 6 Cr.M.P. No. 702 of 2011 With Cr.M.P. No. 918 of 2011 Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 1041 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 666] .) The alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their official duty. However, such sanction is necessary if the offence alleged against the public servant is committed by him "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty" and in order to find out whether the alleged offence is committed "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty", the yardstick to be followed is to form a prima facie view whether the act of omission for which the accused was charged had a reasonable connection with the discharge of his duties. (See State of Maharashtra v.
Budhikota Subbarao [State of Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subbarao, (1993) 3 SCC 339 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 901] .) The real question, therefore, is whether the act committed is directly concerned with the official duty."
14. Further if a complaint case is being filed out of vengeance, every care is being taken to make out a case against the accused persons and if such a situation is there, responsibility on the shoulder of the High Court is much higher and the Court is required to look into the things in between the one. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haji Iqbal @ Bala through S.P.O.A. v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 946.
15. In the judgment relied by Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in the case of Choudhury Parveen Sultana (supra), the allegation was that the complainant threatened to withdraw the complaint case and in view of that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interfered and clause of Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not attracted in that case. The facts of that case was different and thus, that judgment is not helping opposite party no.2.
16. In the judgment relied by Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in the case of The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a previous lawful 7 Cr.M.P. No. 702 of 2011 With Cr.M.P. No. 918 of 2011 trial before a competent court, the petitioner of that case has secured a verdict of acquittal which verdict is binding on his prosecutor and in that case, the reason was that the proceeding before the Collector of Customs was a criminal trial and earlier case was arising out of civil dispute and in view of that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has come to that conclusion. The facts of the present case is otherwise and thus, that judgment is also not helping opposite party no.2.
17. It appears that maliciously the case has been filed against the petitioners and the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 167 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code meant for evidence at any stage of judicial proceeding. The fabrication of false evidence by any person, i.e. not a case in hand and Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code itself is not attracted. In view of the above, Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code is also not attracted.
18. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.P. No.1559 of 2010 including the order taking cognizance dated 25.03.2011, pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad are quashed.
19. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and disposed of.
20. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/ A.F.R.