Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 203 (JHR)

Madan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar

2005-03-10

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2005
JUDGMENT Hari Shankar Prasad, J.- This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 10.12.1998 passed in complaint case NO.130 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, took cognizance under Sections 504, IPC and 3(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act). 2. Facts leading to filing of the complaint case is that complainant-O.P. No.2 filed a complaint case on 19.3.1997 alleging inter alia therein that in between 6.007.00 p.m. he entered the town police station premises along with four other persons of the Bahujan Samaj Party, a political party to meet one Raj Kumar Gautam who was in police lock up for committing offence under Sections 363 and 366/34, IPC on the charge of kidnapping a maiden of I.Sc. examination. It is further alleged that the petitioner Madan Prasad Singh who was the Officer-in-charge of the town police station, insulted the complainant-O.P. No.2 with abusive word "SAALE CHAMAR HO CHAMAR KI TARAH RAHO" and that caused humiliation to him. It is further alleged that the petitioner insulted the complainant-O.P. No.2 knowingly and with bad intention and hence tried to demolish social and caste prestige of the complainant-O.P. No.2 and information to that effect was given to the Superintendent of Police, Palamau by the complainant-O.P. No.2 but no action was taken, although he was called at the office of the Superintendent of Police, Palamau on 21.3.1997 but he could not meet him as Superintendent of Police, Palamau did not attend the office on that day. Thereafter he filed this instant complaint case. His SA was recorded and thereafter inquiry was held under Section 202, CrPC and cognizance in the case was taken. 3. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the instant complaint case is the outcome of private and personal grudge as the complainant-O.P No.2 made every possible effort to get his friends released from the town police station who were arrested with abducted victim girl and on the denial and protest made by this petitioner, the complainant-O.P. No.2 retaliated which resulted in the filing of this complaint case and he also gave caste colour. 4. 4. It is further submitted that on the basis of the written report of one Anirudha Pandey filed on 17.3.1997, a case being Town P.S. Case No. 122 of 1997 dated 18.3.1997 was registered under Sections 363 and 366/34, IPC against some persons and during inquiry and. raid at 7.00 p.m. by this petitioner, the victim girl was recovered along with the accused persons. It is further submitted that when the accused persons were arrested and kept in the police lock-up, the complainant No.2 entered the town police station and did contact the accused persons without having any prior permission of the officials present in the town police station, Daltonganj and he was prevented by the officer on duty, on which the O.P. No.2 became furious. It. is further submitted that the complainant-O.P. No.2 gave telephonic call in the name of Shatrughna Kumar Shatru and threatened him with dire consequences and all the threatening extended to him were recorded in the station diary entry Nos. 568 and 569 dated 19.3.1997. When all attempts made by the complainant-O.P. No.2 to free the offenders did not succeed, then he introduced him as President of Bahujan Samaj Party and threatened that nobody can prevent him from entering the town police station and giving anything to his friends but when this petitioner prevented the complainant-O.P. No.2 from obstructing him in performing government duty without getting permission, then he threatened him to see him and also threatened him that he would get him suspended. Thereafter he has filed this complaint case. This petitioner on 12.4.1997 submitted Non-FIR No.2 of 1997 against this complainant-O.P. No.2 and the same has been registered as C.G. Case No. 30 of 1997 and the prosecution report was submitted under Section 186, IPC. 5. It is further submitted that it is clear from the complaint petition that the petitioner was in the town police station and was doing his official duty and no sanction under Section 197, Cr PC has been taken from the competent authority and, thereafter, this complaint case is not maintainable as the petitioner was performing his duty. 5. It is further submitted that it is clear from the complaint petition that the petitioner was in the town police station and was doing his official duty and no sanction under Section 197, Cr PC has been taken from the competent authority and, thereafter, this complaint case is not maintainable as the petitioner was performing his duty. It is further submitted that from the facts alleged, it will be clear that with ulterior motive, this complaint case has been filed because when O.P. No. 2-complainant failed to get his friends released, he feels humiliated in the eyes of his friends and in order to save his humiliation, he has filed this case. 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that cognizance was taken after due application of judicial mind by the learned Magistrate and the cognizance order does not require any interference. 7. Admittedly, cognizance has been taken under Section 504, IPC and 3(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the allegation against the petitioner is that he abused complainant-O.P. No.2 by calling him in the name of his caste that caused humiliation to him. From the complaint petition itself, it appears that the case was registered under Sections 363 and 366(A), IPC against some persons who were arrested and victim girl was also recovered from the house and the complainant-O.P. No. 2 in the name of President of Bahujan Samaj Party tried to get his friends released from the lock-up and when his attempts to get the arrested persons released did not succeed, who are said to be the friends of the complainant O.P. No.2, due to intervention of the officials at the police station including this petitioner who was then Officer-in-charge of the town police station, which caused humiliation to the complainant-O.P. No.2 because he could not succeed in securing release at the arrested persons from the police lock-up despite being a leader of the political party and it so appears that some sort of altercation or exchange of hot words must have taken place in between the petitioner and the complainant-O.P. No.2, but it cannot be said that the petitioner in any way has misused his official position and abused the complainant-O.P. No.2. Further, filing of this complaint case is nothing but some sort of harassing tendency adopted by the complainant-O.P. No. 2 to harass the petitioner for his failure to get his friends released and the action of the complainant-O.P. No.2 is nothing but actuated with malice and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 10.12.1998 passed in Complaint Case No. 130 of 1997 is hereby quashed.