Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Kumar Singh vs Upendra Prasad Pandey on 23 June, 2016
MCRC-1012-2016
(VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs UPENDRA PRASAD PANDEY)
23-06-2016
Mr. Naman Nagrath, learned senior counsel with Mr. Greeshm Jain, counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.2/State.
Issue notice of this petition to respondent No.1 on payment of process fee by registered post with AD., as well as ordinary mode within three days.
Heard on I.A. No.1128/16, an application for grant of stay. By the instant petition, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order taking cognizance against him based on a private complaint U/s.200 Cr.P.C., alleging offences committed by him U/s.166, 167, 168, 169, 406, 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. and U/s.7 of Employment Exchange Act, 1959. After the statements of the complainant U/s.200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and his witnesses were recorded, the Court vide order dated 14.3.2013 had summoned the petitioner to appear before it. Against the said order, a revision was preferred by the petitioner herein before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Singrauli, which was dismissed and therefore the instant petition U/s.482 of Cr.P.C.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was the former C.M.D. of the Northern Coalfields Ltd (NCL for short). The complainant/respondent No.1 herein is disgruntled by the fact that he was not given employment in the NCL in the Gorbi Project. The complainant in the complaint before the trial Court has mentioned there that under the Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Policy of the year 1993, the displaced persons would be given compensation in lieu of the land acquired by the N.C.L. and also be given employment. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said policy was being abused as several people would buy small plots of land which would then obviously be acquired by N.C.L. and thereafter they will all stand in queue for employment. In order to obviate the continued abuse of the said policy, another Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Policy was brought out in the year 2000 where only those people whose land admeasuring over 2 acres being acquired by N.C.L. would be eligible for employment in the company and the others would be eligible for compensation. Criminality according to respondent No.1 is made out only because the petitioner herein had proceeded under the Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Policy of the year 2000 whereas, according to respondent No.1, the petitioner should have applied 1993 Policy, which call for giving employment to any one whose land was being acquired by the said Policy.
Keeping the above said points, I am inclined to allow I.A. No.1128/16 and stay further proceeding in Criminal Case No.766/13 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Waidhan, Distt. Singrauli, till further orders.
List immediately after the service.
C.C. as per rules.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE