Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 982 (PAT)

Bihar Dalit Vikash Samiti v. State Of Bihar

2001-10-16

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2001
Judgment 1. This order is on the hand written application of the District Magistrate, Vaishali, dated 12 October, 2001 on record. 2. Though the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 19 June, 2001, the order of the High Court was being utilised to an advantage by the petitioner as if to file a First Information Report or a complaint before a Magistrate was one of right. The Court had declined to interfere on the petition. The theme of the order was that if a Public Interest Litigation is being resorted to, then, a citizen who comes to the Court should render such a state of affairs that a complaint has been made to the authorities who are to look into the allegations which partakes the nature of an offence under the criminal law and the authorities may be in inaction. 3. The petitioner one Yugal Kishore Chaudhary brought a PIL under the banner of Bihar Dalit Vikash Samiti. The Court declined to interfere putting the responsibility on the petitioner that if he was so serious and convinced of his claims then he may resort to filing of a First Information Report which if not entertained then approach the Magistrate. 4. In so far as the petition is concerned, the only prayer was that the District Magistrate, Vaishali, should inquire into the matters regarding misappropriation of certain public funds. In the petition there was no allegation, not even a speck of it, against the District Magistrate, Vaishali. 5. On 12 October, 2001 the District Magistrate, Vaishali, appeared in person at the mention hour and pleaded before the Court that whereas the petitioner originally desired the District Magistrate to make an inquiry, he has now been lined up as an accused facing the same allegations. The District Magistrates hand written application is on the record. It is signed by Goutam Goswami, District Magistrate, Vaishali, as respondent No. 2 in C.W.J.C. No. 6825 of 2001. He also intimated that he had filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was registered as Cr. W.J.C.No. 450 of 2001 seeking quashing of the complaint, the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and any F.I.R. in case it has been registered. He also intimated that he had filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was registered as Cr. W.J.C.No. 450 of 2001 seeking quashing of the complaint, the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and any F.I.R. in case it has been registered. As two motions could not go on simultaneously at-the High Court, the District Magistrate made a statement that he would withdraw the case which he had filed and was otherwise running on the list on the day of the mention. The request was that this matter be taken up on 16 October, 2001. Appropriately, the Court directed that the application of the District Magistrate be listed so that counsel who appeared for the petitioner in this PIL has notice that the Court had been requested for a motion by the District Magistrate. 6. Thus, the matter is before the Court today. Counsel for the petitioner is present. The District Magistrate, Vaishali, submitted that Cr. W.J.C. No. 450 of 2001 was withdrawn and the Court had ordered accordingly on 15 October, 2001. What has happened on the home ground in Vaishali has been brought to the notice of the counsel for the petitioner that a complaint action was fiied before the Chief Judicial Magistrate straightaway. An F.I.R. was never filed. In the complaint district officials have been aligned by designation. The complaint makes no allegation against the District Magistrate. Written by hand the complaint refers to offences alleged to have been committed, impliedly by the opposite parties so arrayed. The sections on offences which have been endorsed by hand are under Indian Penal Code being Sections 417, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120B. This is a ridiculous situation that a person who had nothing to do with any matter and was supposed to make an inquiry has been lined up as an accused to face the allegations from cheating to conspiracy. All this happened because of a PIL which was brought to the Court. The High Court had dismissed the case. Thereafter, the petitioner thought that he had the licence to make an allegation against anybody in whatever terms he may and get away with it. An opportunity was given to bring in a First Information Report with responsibility that the allegation made would be specific against an offence which is alleged. In the present case an FIR has not been filed. 7. An opportunity was given to bring in a First Information Report with responsibility that the allegation made would be specific against an offence which is alleged. In the present case an FIR has not been filed. 7. In so far as the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate are concerned, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 16 July, 2001 records that the directions of his court are being given in effect upon a request of the lawyer of the petitioner. 8. The purpose of the complaint apparently has been served because now a First Information Report will be registered and all that has been set in the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate will become a content of the FIR. But, there is no allegation against the District Magistrate. Counsel for the petitioner even today contends that he had desired the District Magistrate to make an inquiry. The District Magistrate has brought the records to show that when the petitioner came to him on 19 February, 2001, he had already taken steps to put an inquiry into motion. 9. The Court has no hesitation in observing that the petitioner was very irresponsible in the manner in which the process of the Court was set in motion under the Criminal Procedure Code for institution of an FIR with no allegation against a person who is supposed to inquire into the matter and otherwise hold an inquiry himself. With the District Magistrate not an accused such a complaint would compromise with the authority of the District Magistrate. The petitioner has already taken much publicity out of this complaint, and made capital out of it in local politics. 10. In the interest of justice and further to ensure that there is no harrassment to a person who has nothing to do on any allegations of misappropriation or misfeasance, it would be best that the complaint which carries the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 16 July, 2001 be quashed. Accordingly both the complaint and the order, aforesaid, stand quashed.