Jharkhand High Court
Mahesh Bareja vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr. on 12 January, 2015
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 25 of 2002
-----
Mahesh Bareja ....Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Shri Sanjay Kumar Jha. .....Opposite Parties
----
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Delip Jerath, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Anita Sinha, Advocate
For O.P. No. 2 : None
-----
06/12.1.2015Heard Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anita Sinha, learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2.
In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 3.10.2001, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in C.P. Case No. 95 of 2001, by which cognizance for the offence under sections 417 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken as against the petitioner.
It appears that a complaint petition was instituted by the complainant/opposite party no. 2 herein, in which it was alleged that although he was called for an appointment as a P.G.T. Teacher but he was paid salary of trained graduate teacher in the month of April, 1998 and that also for 14 days although he had worked for the entire month. It has further been alleged that the petitioner used to deduct Rs.10/- only per month from his salary for construction of staff club and maintenance of the same and although petitioner was deducting Rs.10/- per month from the salary of all the teaching staffs but neither the staff club was constructed, nor there was any account with respect to the deducted amount. It has been stated in the complaint petition that one Manoranjan Prasad Sinha was working as P.G.T. (Chem) teacher in the school of the petitioner since 11.08.1992 but appointment letter was issued on 17.08.1992 as P.G.T. Grade IV ( Chem) teacher. On 16.5.1993, the said Manoranjan Prasad Sinha was discharged from the service by the Managing Committee. It was also alleged therein that Manoranjan Prasad Sinha was engaged as an invigilator in March 1993 in the final examination of C.B.S.E. but in spite of discharging his duty, the remuneration for such work of Rs.180/- was not paid to him. It has also been stated in the complaint -2- petition that the accused petitioner without approval of the Managing Committee of the school had suspended the opposite party no.2/complainant and transferred him to Bokaro, DPS but when he protested against his transfer by launching a hunger strike, the accused petitioner withdrew his transfer order.
After examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation and his witnesses, cognizance was taken by order dated 3.10.2001 for the offence under sections 417 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that perusal of the complaint petition does not reveal any criminal intention on the part of the petitioner so as to prosecute him in the present case. He has further submitted that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was the Principal of D.P.S. and save and except the complainant, no allegation has been levelled by any teacher with respect to deduction of Rs.10/- per month for the purposes of construction of a staff club. He has further submitted that the complaint petition discloses about one Manoranjan Prasad Sinha, who was the witness in the present case and who was subsequently terminated and his termination was affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal ( Civil) No.(s) 13289-13290/2013, and therefore, he submits that since no case is made out against the petitioner from perusal of the complaint petition, as such this application is fit to be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner do constitute an offence punishable under sections 417 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the relevant records, I find that the present complaint petition lacks the criminal intention on the part of the petitioner so as to prosecute him for the offence under sections 417 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code.
It appears from the complaint petition that the complainant has also included the grievance of one Manoranjan Prasad Sinha, who was a witness of the complainant and the only grievance, which the complainant has, is with respect to deduction of Rs.10/- per month from his salary for the purpose of construction of a staff club and for non payment of certain amount on account of withdrawal of the order of transfer. It thus appears that the complainant is basically -3- aggrieved with the actions taken by the petitioner and by the Managing Committee of the school with respect to his service and for the said grievance, no criminal case can be maintained at his instance.
The powers vested in the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. when invoked would have far reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the complainant's case without allowing the complainant to lead evidence. Therefore, such powers have to be exercised with utmost care and caution to prevent the abuse of the process of Court.
Applying the factual matrix of the present case within the parameters of the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C., would indisputably lead to the conclusion that only with a view to wreck vengeance against the petitioner on account of the disputes the complainant was having with the petitioner and the managing committee of the school with respect to his service in the said school as a teacher, the criminal complaint had been instituted. Thus, it can be concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case would be an abuse of the process of the court.
In view of what has been discussed above, this application is allowed. The entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 3.10.2001, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in C.P. Case No. 95 of 2001, by which cognizance for the offence under sections 417 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken as against the petitioner, is hereby quashed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Rakesh/