Patna High Court - Orders
Rash Bihari Prasad Singh & Anr. vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 4 January, 2013
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22635 of 2011 (4) dt.04-01-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.22635 of 2011
======================================================
1. Rash Bihari Prasad Singh son of Late Jagannath Prasad Singh, at Present
University Professor & Head of Department of Geography, Patna
University, Patna
2. Dr.Vibhash Kumar Yadav son of Late Harbansh Roy, at Present Registrar
of BRA, Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, Bihar
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Dr.Dharm Prakash son of Late Kuldeep Nayan, R/O Professor's Quarter,
Science College Campus, Patna University, Distt.-Patna
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Miscellaneous No.42496 of 2011
======================================================
1. Dr. Deepak Kumar Sharma S/O Late Chandra Kumar Sharma, Resident
Of -A/23, Professor Colony, Near Lal Babu Market, North Shashtrinagar,
P.S.- Shashtrinagar, District- Patna
2. Dr. Randhir Kumar Singh S/O Sri Anant Prasad Singh, Associate
Professor, Deptt. of Sociology, Patna College Patna, P.S.- Pirbahore,
District- Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Dr. Dhram Prakash S/O Late Kuldeep Nayan, Resident of Professor's
Quarter, Science College Campus, Patna University, Distt.- Patna
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Cr.Misc. No.22635 of 2011)
and
(In Cr.Misc. No.42496 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate and
Harendra Kr. Tiwary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 04-01-2013Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22635 of 2011 (4) dt.04-01-2013
2. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 7th October 2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2320/2010 whereby and whereunder the court below has taken cognizance for offence under sections 468, 469 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It appears from the complaint petition, cognizance has been taken against five persons, namely, Professor Deepak Kr. Sharma, Professor Shambhu Nath Guha, Dr. Ras Bihari Prasad Singh, Dr. Randheer Kr. Singh and Dr. Vibhash Kr. Yadav. Out of 05 persons, two persons, namely, Dr. Deepak Kr. Sharma and Dr. Randheer Kr. Singh moved before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 42496/2011 and the same has been dismissed by the Court vide order dated 04.04.2012.
4. It appears from the complaint petition, there was a dispute between the complainant and one Dr. Ram Jatan Sinha in connection with headship of the Chemistry Department. It appears from the record that the complainant was the Head of the Department of Chemistry but later on Dr. Ram Jatan Sinha was appointed as the head and even after the request of the Vice Chancellor, the complainant did not hand over the charge and ultimately, the Vice Chancellor, constituted a Committee, appointed a Convenor, members of the Committee for the purpose Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22635 of 2011 (4) dt.04-01-2013 of taking charge and preparation of the inventory, after opening the chamber of the Head of Department. Petitioners, were members of the Committee, as per the direction of the Vice Chancellor, opened the lock and prepared the inventory. In the complaint petition, it has been alleged that the complainant was served report of the inventory where he found that there are some discrepancies in between inventory reports filed in the court and inventory report handed over to him in connection with Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 323/2009, G.R. No. 4294/2009. On comparison of both reports it was found, certain portion of sentences of the report were missing in the copy supplied to the complainant. The complainant finding fault with the act of the members of the Committee, filed the present case, setting criminal case in motion.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submits even if facts mentioned in the complaint petition to be admitted, no offence is made out against the petitioners. Petitioners being Professor of the University, do come under the purview of public servant, as has been defined under section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and as such, no criminal case can be instituted or the court cannot take cognizance without having sanctioned order by the competent authority.
6. In support of his contention the petitioner has Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22635 of 2011 (4) dt.04-01-2013 relied on judgment reported in 2010 (1) PLJR 989 (Dr. Suresh Prasad v. State of Bihar), 2006 (3) PLJR 192 SC (Ran Vijay Kumar v. State of Bihar) 2006 (1) PLJR 401 (SC) and he has also cited another judgment on the points that merely the petitioners would have a chance to get discharge during the trial cannot ipso facto be a ground for refusal to exercise the power u/s 482 Cr. P.C, when from the fact mentioned in the complaint petition does not disclose any offence committed by the petitioner. In support of his contention the petitioner relied following judgments AIR 1998 SC 128 (M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, para- 28, 29), AIR 1998 SC 2796 (Ashok Chaturvedi v. Shitul H. Chanchani, para-5), paragraph 7 of AIR 2000 SC 754: (2000) 2 SCC 636 (G.Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.), (2007) 12 SCC 1 (Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal, para-23), AIR 1992 SC (1) 604 (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal) and para- 25 & 26 of (2011) 3 SCC 351 (Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley) whereas the counsel for the opposite party has submitted that mere look to the paragraph 5 of inventory report itself shows that it was not a photocopy of the same rather it was prepared later on and purposely where certain portion of the lines were made to miss.
7. At this stage, this Court is not deciding the issue one way or the other and accordingly this Court is refusing to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22635 of 2011 (4) dt.04-01-2013 decide the issue raised by the petitioner. This Court does not find any error in the order impugned. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However the liberty is given to the petitioner to raise all points before the court below at the appropriate stage, especially, at the time of faming of charge. If such application is filed by the petitioner, the court below will pass the order in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/-