Poonam Singh v. State Of Bihar — 1999 DIGILAW 501 (PAT)

Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Though the petitioners have prayed for quashing both the police case and the complaint case, the order dated 24-3-1999 shows that at the time of issuance of notice, the Counsel for the petioners confined his prayer only to the quashing of Deoghar P.S. Case No. 17 of 1999. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar and petitioner No. 3 is a clerk of her office. The Opposite Pary No. 2, a school teacher, is the informant as well as the complainant in the aforesaid two cases. He lodged, at the first instance, the First Information Report on 26-1-99 alleging, inter alia, that on receiving the order of suspension, he along with his brother-in-law had gone to the office of the petitioner No.1. He placed all the documents before her which were in his favour. At that time, petitioner No. 2, Kabindra Singh, asked for Rs. 500/-which was refused by Kamdeo Das. Petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have told that if the said amount is not paid, the Opposite Party No. 2 will continue under suspension. He had some altercation and petitioner No. 2 caught hold of collar of the informant and his brother-in-law and put them outside the room. Petitioner No. 1 thereatened to discharge him and asked petitioner No. 2 to note his name. Some abuses were also hurled against the informant and when he protested the petitioner No. 2 gave him slaps. 4. It was further alleged that the petitioner No. 1 did not give any reciept of the papers submitted by him. With this allegation, the First Information Report was lodged and Deoghar PS-3 Case No. 17 of 1999 under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. 5. Being not satisfied with the lodging of the First Information Report the Opposite Party No. 2 also filed a complaint petition before the Chief Judicial Magistate, Deoghar on 27-1-1999. In the complaint petition, the informant had gone further by alleging that it was petitioner No, 1 who asked for Rs. 10,000/- in liue of vacating suspension order. She threatened the complainant in various ways and when he refused to pay such heavy amount, the petitioner No. 1 became furious and abused the complainant by using some unparliamentary language. In the complaint petition, the informant had gone further by alleging that it was petitioner No, 1 who asked for Rs. 10,000/- in liue of vacating suspension order. She threatened the complainant in various ways and when he refused to pay such heavy amount, the petitioner No. 1 became furious and abused the complainant by using some unparliamentary language. The complainant objected to the same and the petitioner No. 1 caught hold the collar of the complainant and assaulted him with fists and slaps and petitioner No. 2 also joined her. The petitioner No. 2 assaulted him mercilessly with fists and torn out his shirt and paint and in this way he sustained loss of Rs.800/-. The petitioner No. 1 took away Rs. 500/- from the pocket of the complainant and petitioner No. 2 took away his wrist watch worth Rs. 600/- from the person of the complainant. The complainant further has stated that being a Harijan and belongs to Scheduled Caste and due to the abuse and intentionally insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate within the public place the petitioners have committed the offence under the S.C. and S.T. Act. The reasonings for filing of the complaint as stated by the complainant is that though the matter was informed to the police station but the police did not take any action. According to him, no sanction was required in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is well settled. The High Court in such exercise will definitely not look into the documents of the defence and it has to confine itself with the mere allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint. It is also well settled that if the High Court on scruitinising the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint comes to a conclusion that the criminal proceeding was initiated with some mala fide intention or oblique motive the High Court will be justified in quashing of either of the same. Reference, if any, may be made to the decision in the case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 Cri LJ Page 627. Reference, if any, may be made to the decision in the case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 Cri LJ Page 627. According to their Lordships of the Supreme Court, where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the High Court will be justified in quashing the same. Moreover, it is also observed that where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint is so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the High Court will not hesitate in quashing the same. 7. As discused above, the Opposite Party No. 2, a teacher of the school, had gone to petitioner No. 1, Distreict Superintendent of Education, in connection with his suspension order. In the First Information Report accusing fingers have been raised mainly against the petitioner No. 1, a clerk in the office of the petitioner No. 1. 8. According to the Opposite Party No. 2 the clerk asked for Rs. 500/- and on refusal by Kamdeo Das, the brother-in-law of the informant, there was some altercation and the said clerk caught hold of collar of both the informant and his brother-in-law. On the otherhand, in the complaint petition Opposite Party No. 2 has gone further by alleging that it was petitioner No. 1, who asked for Rs.10,000/- for revoking the suspension order and on his refusal, the District Superintendent of Educaion used some unparliamentary lanugage. Not only that is also complained that it was the petitioner No. 1, who assaulted the Opposite Party No. 2. The petitioner No. 1 also took away Rs.500/- from the pocket of the complainant and the petitioner No. 2 snatched the wrist watch. 9. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2, however, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. The petitioner No. 1 also took away Rs.500/- from the pocket of the complainant and the petitioner No. 2 snatched the wrist watch. 9. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2, however, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another V/s. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, AIR 1996 SC 309 : 1995 (2) East Cr C 706 (SC), in support of his contention that whatever may be the allegations, it is the criminal Court who will test the veracity or otherwise of the same. In my view, the decision in Gills case is not a departure from the decision of Ch.Bhajan Lal (supra). 10. In this case, as noticed above, the Opposite Party No. 2 not only filed the First Information Report but also the complaint immediately on the next day making out a case against Opposite Party No. 1. The allegations made in the complaint petition are yet to be considered by the Magistrate and, as such, no discussion on the merit of the same is required to be done at this stage. However, when admittedly a complaint has been filed which is to be considered by the Magistrate, the Police Case registered on the basis of a FIR on more or less same allegations cannot be allowed to continue. 11. In the result, this application is allowed. The First Information Report in Deoghar P.S. Case No. 17/99 dated 26-1-1999 is quashed. However, it is made clear that I have not quashed the complaint case being PCR No. 30/99, arising out of the complaint petition filed by the Opposite Party No. 2.