Judgment 1. Pyare Lal Sah, at present posted as Executive Engineer, Building Division, P.W.D., Kaimur (Bhabhua) has filed this application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 214/ 2005, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua, including the order 20.1.2006 passed by him whereby he has taken cognizance against this petitioner under Sections 379, 323 of Indian Penal Code and summons were issued against him for facing trial. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. No body appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2 Jang Bahadur Singh. Learned counsel had appeared earlier and sought for adjournment. My attention has also been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the fact that learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 was asked to submit papers in respect of payment of bill, but uptil now no such papers have been filed by O.P. No. 2.3. The date of occurrence is 12.3.2005 at 4 P.M. Place of occurrence the official chambers of the petitioner. 4. As per allegation made in Complaint Case No. 214/2005, the complainant Jang Bahadur Singh had gone to the office of the petitioner and made request for payment of his bill for the works done by him as a departmental contractor of P.W.D., which was related to the repairing work of the residence of D.E.O. and some other different works. In all, his claim was Rs. 88,000/-. The allegation is to the effect that despite the order of Chief Engineer and grant of money receipt, the petitioner was not given contract for repairing of Rampur Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Kendra and on being asked to refund the money in the form of security deposit, the petitioner abused and assaulted the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- fell down in course of assault which was lifted by the accused persons. 5. The complaint has been lodged on 16.3.2005 for an occurrence which took place on 12.3.2005. There is absence of plausible explanation of such delay in lodging the case. It has also been alleged that other bills like repairing of Munsifs quarter etc. are also pending for which Money Suit No. 3/2004 is pending in the court of Munsif, Bhabhua. 5. The complaint has been lodged on 16.3.2005 for an occurrence which took place on 12.3.2005. There is absence of plausible explanation of such delay in lodging the case. It has also been alleged that other bills like repairing of Munsifs quarter etc. are also pending for which Money Suit No. 3/2004 is pending in the court of Munsif, Bhabhua. Further allegation is that the accused-petitioner has lodged a criminal case with the Police against the informant Jang Bahadur Singh, who is O.P. No. 2 here, for which Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 68/2005 has been registered and as such there was delay in instituting the complaint case. 6. Annexure-2 is the F.I.R. drawn at the instance of the petitioner Pyare Lal Sah against the informant of the complaint case Jang Bahadur Singh under Sections 341, 323, 447, 353, 186, 427, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code, all bailable in nature. But the petitioner Executive Engineer Pyare Lal Sah has alleged that on 12.3.2005 at 4 P.M. while he was in his official chamber for performing official duty, O.P. No. 2 arrived there and asked him to refund the security deposit, for which he asked the complainant- O.P. No. 2 to fill up necessary form and contact Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer. On this, complainant-O.P. No. 2 abused the Junior Engineer in filthy language and on protest being made by the Executive Engineer, he was assaulted by the contractor- O.P. No. 2. The occurrence was witnessed by several witnesses who were present in the office, the number of which was ten. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner happens to be Class-1 Officer holding the rank of Executive Engineer and he was abused and assaulted in his official chamber by the contractor O.P. No. 2 simply for the reason that he did not oblige the contractor by making cash payment of the security deposit. It is but natural that certain formalities for return of security deposit is to be done. It is further submitted not a chit of paper has been shown or brought on the record regarding payment of bill etc. In such circumstances, there can not be any presumption of demand of ransom or bribe publicly in the official chamber of the petitioner when no such paper is on the record so as to show that any bill of Rs. In such circumstances, there can not be any presumption of demand of ransom or bribe publicly in the official chamber of the petitioner when no such paper is on the record so as to show that any bill of Rs. 88,000/- was ever pending for any apparent reason. There may be various reasons for nonpayment of bills and for that the Opposite party should also invoke the jurisdiction of the civil court by instituting a suit. 8. Secondly, the prosecution story suffers from inherent absurdity coupled with the contradiction so far happening of the event in respect of participation and manner is concerned. In the complaint petition, it has been alleged that someone out of the two accused i.e. the petitioner and the Junior Engineer has lifted Rs. 5,000/- which fell from the pocket of the complainant on the floor of the office. But in his statement on oath, the complainant O.P. No. 2 Jang Bahadur Singh has made it clear that Rs. 5,000/- which fell on the ground was lifted by co-accused Harihar Singh who is Junior Engineer and on being asked for refund of the same, it was refused. In the same breath the complainant has stated that it was the Junior Engineer Harihar Singh and not this petitioner who assulted him with slipper. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the complainant Jang Bahadur Singh in course of trial has stated that he was assaulted by Pyare Lal Sah i.e. this petitioner and it was he who had lifted Rs. 5,000/- which fell from his pocket. In the same deposition, the complainant absolved the Junior Engineer Harihar Singh by stating that Harihar Singh simply participated in pacifying the situation. So, according to the complainant, it was the accused persons who had taken the money which fell from his pocket. But in the trial, the complainant stated that it was the petitioner Pyare Lal Sah who committed theft of Rs. 5,000/-. Subsequently, a compromise petition also seems to have been filed which is on the record dated 8.3.2006. It was stated in the compromise petition that both the parties i.e. the complainant and the petitioner-accused have without any coercion and pressure entered into the compromise and as such harmonious relationship have been restored between them. In Para-3 of the said petition it has been clearly mentioned that Rs. It was stated in the compromise petition that both the parties i.e. the complainant and the petitioner-accused have without any coercion and pressure entered into the compromise and as such harmonious relationship have been restored between them. In Para-3 of the said petition it has been clearly mentioned that Rs. 5,000/- which fell from the pocket of the complainant was found lying outside the office and both the parties do not want to pursue the matter any more. Of course, later on the complainant-O.P. No. 2 has stated that it was only a pressure tactics for which he filed such compromise petition. 10. Incidentally, the complainant-O.P. No. 2 is not here, perhaps for the reasons best known to him so as to avoid to clarify the situation and the defence taken by the petitioner. 11. It has been submitted that if the petitioner being Class-1 officer in the Engineering Department discharging his official duty in official chamber is abused and assaulted by a contractor for any valid or otherwise reasons, then no public servant can feel safe in discharging his official duty. There may be possibility of pendency of any bill in the office of the petitioner or somewhere else, but that is to be dealtwith in accordance with law. Merely, by doing some contract work does not entitle any contractor for payment by the Government Agency unless certain formalities, procedures and technical sanctions etc. are fulfilled even then, it was not within the competence of the petitioner to have fulfilled the grievance of the O.P. contractor by refunding the security deposit amount from his own pocket. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Arbitration clause in which there is specific provision in respect of payment and instead of Arbitration process, he can not be dragged in criminal court. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of Hon ble Apex Court reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 337 (State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal) and Clause-V and VII of such Arbitration to conclude his argument that such case in which public servants facing prosecution without any official sanction should be fully protected so that they could muster courage to perform their duties honestly, sincerely, fearlessly. 13. 13. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the occurrence took place in the official chamber of the petitioner at 4 P.M. and there is absence of any plausible explanation of delay in lodging the complaint case. Such absurdity and contradictory facts emerging from the above referred statements of the complainant itself are suggestive of the fact that the very continuance of the proceeding in the court below will only amount to abuse of process of law and wastage of valuable time of the court. 14. In the facts and circumstances, the impugned order as also the entire criminal proceedings as against this petitioner stands quashed and this application is, accordingly, allowed.