Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

dismissed the revision by observing that no illegality or error was caused by the S.D.M., Chakradharpur by issuing notice to both the parties and that the notices issued to the parties did not call for interference.

4. Learned Counsel Mr. Tewari submitted that the petitioner No.1 was the Financial Advisor-cum-Chief Accounts Officer of South Eastern Railway posted at Garden Reach, Calcutta at the relevant time whereas the petitioner No.2 was the Senior Divisional Finance Manager of South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur posted at Chakradharpur and the petitioner No.3 was the Commercial Inspector at the relevant time in the South Eastern Railway at Chakradharpur on 19.02.2008. The petitioner No.1 being the Principal Advisor- cum-Financial Advisor had come to Chakradharpur from Garden Reach, Calcutta on the official visit to inspect the office of the O.P.No.2 Shankar Prasad Tanti, Deputy Chief Ticket Inspector at Chakradharpur and during course of inspection necessary registers, investigation registers, muster roll and other relevant documents were inspected by him. Learned Counsel explained that the Opposite Party No.2 was not present during such inspection/checking by the petitioner No.1. However, he went there upon an information received and tried to create hindrance and obstruction in the work of the Senior Officer like Petitioner No.1 and finally he started using abusive language against the petitioners which created commotion and the petitioners in such situation having no alternative than to come back from the office of the O.P.No.2 without completing their inspection work. The Divisional Security Commissioner was immediately informed, who rushed there before whom a complaint under Railway Act was lodged being C4/108/08 on 19.02.2008 for the offence under Sections 145/146 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. The Erring Officer O.P.No.2 herein by way of putting counter pressure upon the petitioners filed a petition before the G.R.P., Chakradharpur for initiation of a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa without consideration of the fact that it was the O.P.No.2, who was the aggressor and put obstruction in the official work of the petitioners, dismissed the Criminal Revision ignoring the fact as well that the petitioners were highly placed officials of the Indian Railway and that a Departmental Proceeding was also initiated against the Opposite Party No.2, who with ill-motive and on fictitious grounds filed a written report for initiation of a proceeding though there was no apprehension of breach of peace at all between the parties. In that view of the matter continuation of a proceeding under Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure would tantamount to the abuse of the process of the Court by giving tool in the hands of the Erring Officer whose conduct was of insubordination to the authority of the petitioners and therefore, the proceeding initiated under Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners may be quashed.

5. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 as also Mr. S.N.Rajgarhia, A.P.P.

6. The petitioners are admittedly the highly placed officials in the Indian Railway and this fact has not been disputed either by the State or the O.P.No.2. The fact has further not been disputed that the Petitioner No.1 Lakshman Chandra Mazumdar had come to Chakradharpur from Garden Reach, Calcutta especially to inspect and visit the office of the O.P.No.2 and during such inspection Opposite Party No.2 came there, put obstruction in inspection work and started hurling abuses. When a complaint was made to the Divisional Security Commissioner for the offence alleged under Section 145/146 of the Indian Railway Act, 1989 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him, the Opposite Party No.2 maliciously filed a written complaint before the G.R.P., Chakradharpur for initiation of a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners though from the facts and circumstances of the case I find that none of them was at fault and it was the O.P.No.2, who put obstruction in the official work of the petitioners while they were engaged in inspecting his Office at Chakradharpur Railway Station. Such act of the petitioners did not call for initiation of a proceeding under Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure as there was no occasion for the petitioners to commit breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility. I find that the learned S.D.M., Porahat at Chakradharpur without application of mind and also without taking into consideration the situation prevailing, issued notice upon the petitioners to show-cause which cannot be sustained under law, accordingly, initiation of proceeding under Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners along with the notices issued therein against them are quashed.