Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Lal Verma And Anr. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 18 February, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995CRILJ2740
ORDER Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.
1. Smt. Raj Aneja respondent No. 2 joined as a school mistress in Musaddi Lal Arya Girls High School, Ambala Cantt in August, 1962. She discharged her duties with sincerity and became in charge of 9th Class. This school was a Government aided recognised school and was liable to make payment to its staff as per the State Government scales and allowances. The Management of the school, however, asked the teachers to donate 5% of their salary per month to the school and also raise donation every month from the students. Respondent No. 2 did not agree to this illegal and arbitrary demand. So, on 30-4-1992 while she was attending the staff meeting she was humiliated by Krishan Lal petitioner and was asked to go out. Thereafter she was deprived of her work as in charge of the class and was reverted to a subject teacher. The petitioners in order to harm her reputation placed her under suspicion and asked her to attend the school regularly without assigning her any job. As a result of these acts of the petitioners, she was insulted publicly and her reputation was harmed and .lowered in the eyes of the staff, students, their parents and public at large. On these averments Raj Aneja respondent filed a complaint against the Manager and President of the Managing Committee of Arya Girls High School, Ambala, under Sections 500 and 501, I.P.C.
2. After recording preliminary evidence Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt found that a prima-facie case under Section 500, I.P.C. was made out against the petitioners and he summoned them to face trial for the offence vide order Annexure PA dated 4-5-1993. The petitioners filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the above referred order on the ground that action was taken against respondent No. 2 as she created indiscipline and misappropriated the funds of the school. The action was taken by the petitioners in their capacity as Manager and President of the managing committee and did not constitute any offence under Section 500, I.P.C. They were competent to exercise the control over the affairs of the school and its employees and were protected in view of the 7th, 8th and 9th exception of Section 499, I.P.C.
3. In the return filed by the respondent it was maintained that the impugned order was perfectly justified as prima facie case was made out against the petitioners. There was no ground justifying the quashing of the order vide which the petitioners were summoned to face trial.
4. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
5. The only assertion made; by the learned counsel, for the petitioners was that the petitioners were having lawful authority over the staff in the school and whatever action was taken against the respondent was taken in good faith, and they were protected in view of the exceptions to Section 499, I.P.C. This contention of the learned counsel does not hold good. The question whether the act of the petitioners and and the imputations against the respondent were saved in view of the exceptions is to be determined by the trial Court after evidence is led. At the time of passing an order for summoning, the Court was simply to find out whether a prima facie case was made out or not. On general consideration of the materials placed before the trial Court if it formed opinion that factual ingredients constituting the offence existed, then the person accused could be summoned to stand trial. In Smt. Negawiva v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kayalqi, , it was observed that at the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case. In the instant case the petitioners have not sought quashing of the first information report on the ground that ingredients of an offence under Section 500, I.P.C. were not made out. They have simply assailed the order summoning the petitioners to stand trial. The order has been passed after duly considering the preliminary evidence produced by the respondent. There is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.