Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 256 (PAT)

Uma Kant Jha v. State Of Bihar

1997-04-01

N.K.SINHA

body1997
Judgment 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. No counter affidavit has been filed either on behalf of the State or respondent No.2 despite adjoumment obtained for the said purpose 3. As is evident from the Courts order dated 5-3-1997, the parties explored the possibility of arriving at a compromise which exercise ended in failure as submitted at the bar today. 4. This writ application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for quashing the order dated 16-9-1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision against an order dated 12-3-1996 passed in a complaint case by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and affirming the said order. By the said order dated 12-3-1996 copy of which is Annexure-6, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No.2. taken the cognizance of the offence under Secs. 418, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 477 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. The said order was passed after examining the complainant on solemn affirmation and without any inquiry. As already observed earlier the said order had been affirmed by the revisional Court by Annexure-6. 5. Shri Tara Kant Jha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegations made in the complaint petition did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioner and that even going by the contents of the said complaint petition, the filing of the same appears to be a malicious act on the part of the complainant. 6. The petitioner is the Headmaster in-charge of Government Basic School, Bareta. Respondent No. 2 the complainant of Complaint Case No.195/96 is an Assistant Teacher employed in the same school. Respondent No.2 in the complaint petition copy of which is Annexure-4 alleged that the petitioner was junior to him in service and had become Headmaster in-charge on 1-1-1995 without any legal authority. It is further alleged that the SDFO Katihar had ordered the petitioner-accused by his letter No. 226 dated 11-11-1995 to hand over the charge to the complainant but on some plea or the other, the petitioner did not do so and continued to be the Headmaster in charge in connivance with some higher departmental authorities. It is further alleged that the SDFO Katihar had ordered the petitioner-accused by his letter No. 226 dated 11-11-1995 to hand over the charge to the complainant but on some plea or the other, the petitioner did not do so and continued to be the Headmaster in charge in connivance with some higher departmental authorities. The allegations on the basis of which the offences were alleged to have been committed by the petitioner as mentioned in para 4 of the complaint petition, is that the complainants date of birth as mentioned in the matriculation certificate as well as in the service book, is 1-1-1941 and the accused-petitioner, with a view to harm the interest of the complainant had mentioned his date of birth as 1-21939 in place of 1-1-1941 in the monthly report statement which he was sending to the concerned authorities. It is an obvious reference to the higher authorities of the department. It may be mentioned that it is not in dispute that the teacher including the Headmaster of the school are all Government Servants and that they will retire after completing the age of 58 years. 7. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that even if the allegations made in the complaint petition, are taken in their entirety and on their face value, they do not disclose any offence of cheating or forgery etc. as alleged by the complainant. The only allegation made in the complaint petition is that the petitioner-accused had changed the date of birth. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not the controlling authority of the complainant inasmuch as the complainant would have retired after completion of 58 years of age on the basis of his date of birth given by the petitioner is the monthly report/statement. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not the controlling authority of the complainant inasmuch as the complainant would have retired after completion of 58 years of age on the basis of his date of birth given by the petitioner is the monthly report/statement. The argument proceeded on the line that the Headmaster in course of his duties had submitted the monthly report and if there was any error in the date of birth, no inference can be drawn either in law or in fact that he had done so only with a view to harm respondent No.2 It is true that as mentioned in the complaint petition, the relationship between the accused and the complainant was far from cordial and if a mistake had been committed by the petitioner in giving the wrong date of birth in the monthly report/ statement, respondent No.2 might carry an impression that he had done so deliberately. However, the mere belief of the complainant is not enough to provide any basis for making the allegation. I say so for the simple reason that in the complaint petition, nowhere mentioned that the petitioner had interpolated the date of birth in the service book. As a matter of fact there is nothing in the complaint petition to even suggest such a thing. It is not alleged in the complaint petition that the service book of the complainant was in the custody of the petitioner, the Headmaster. It is difficult to avoid an impression that because of strained relationship between petitioner and respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 believes that the mistake in the date of birth in the aforesaid report furnished by the petitioner Headmaster had been deliberately made while jumping to the conclusion that he had done so with a view to harm the interest of respondent No. 2. If respondent No. 2 felt so aggrieved the easiest course for him would have been to file a representation before the appropriate authorities for ignoring the mistake that had been committed instead of jumping to the conclusion that it had been done deliberately with a view to harm his interest. 8. If respondent No. 2 felt so aggrieved the easiest course for him would have been to file a representation before the appropriate authorities for ignoring the mistake that had been committed instead of jumping to the conclusion that it had been done deliberately with a view to harm his interest. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 advanced an argument that a revision against the said order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having been dismissed by the Sessions Court a second revision before this Court was barred by law and hence, this writ application was not maintainable. I am not inclined to share this view the petitioner had no other remedy available such as filing of second revision which was barred under Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure his application invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be dismissed as not maintainable. 9. Thus is for the foregoing reasons this writ application is allowed and the impugned orders as also the criminal prosecution of the petitioner are quashed.