Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 289 (PAT)

Ram Govind Thakur v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-08

MADHAVENDRA SARAN

body2007
Judgment Madhavendra Saran, J. 1. Cr. Misc. 1100 of 1998 has been heard together along with Cr. Misc. No. 21278/98 as they both have been preferred for quashing the order dated 13.2.97 passed by Shri G.S. Ram Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sasaram in complaint case no. 24/97 corresponding to Tr. No. 1038/97 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken u/ss. 147, 323, 342 and 504 of the IPC and also for quashing the petition of complaint on the basis of which complaint case no. 24/97 was registered in the Court of CJM, Rohtas at Sasaram. 2. It appears that complainant/OP no. 2 Sunil Kumar Sharad filed a petition of complaint vide complaint case no. 24/97 in the Court of CJM, Rohtas at Sasaram against Dinesh Chand (petitioner of Cr. Misc. no. 1100 of 1998) Ram Govind Thakur, A.R. Sharma, Shambhu Singh and R.K.R Sinha (Petitioners of Cr. Misc. no. 21278/98) for an occurrence which had allegedly taken place on 6.1.1997 at 12.30 PM in the guest house of Sahu Jain. The ease of the complainant, in short, is that on 6.1.1997 at 12.30 PM he went to meet the Official Liquidator of M/s Rohtas Industries Ltd. to discuss the local problems in respect of water, supply of electricity etc. The complainant introduced himself as President of Dehri Prakhand Yuva Janta Dal to petitioner Dinesh Chand and tried to discuss the local problems but the petitioner refused to listen him and asked him to go away from the office. It is alleged that petitioner Dinesh Chand indulged in scuffle with the complainant during course of which the complainant lost his wristwatch which was taken away by the petitioner. The petitioner called the other persons of management named R.G. Thakur, A.R. Verma, Shambhu Singh and R.K.P. Sinha who assaulted the complainant. It is further alleged that on the order given by petitioner Dinesh Chand to assault the complainant, he was kept confined for four hours in a room and threatening to shoot him was also given. It appears that learned Magistrate examined the complainant on S.A and also the statement of two witnesses examined during enquiry and after being satisfied that prima facie case is made out took cognizance against the petitioners and ordered to issue summons against them. 3. It appears that learned Magistrate examined the complainant on S.A and also the statement of two witnesses examined during enquiry and after being satisfied that prima facie case is made out took cognizance against the petitioners and ordered to issue summons against them. 3. It is the case of petitioners that Dinesh Chand was initially appointed as Registrar of Companies on the recommendation of UPSC by the Hon ble President in the Central Company Law Service w.e.f. 29.4.92 in the Office of Registrar of Companies, Kolkata vide annexure-1 to the application. Petitioner Dinesh Chand thereafter was transferred as Registrar of Companies Bihar, Patna and accordingly, he joined the said post on 13.1.95. He was later on transferred as Official Liquidator vide notification dated 12.6.96 vide annexure-2 to the application and accordingly, he joined the post of Official Liquidator on 24.6.96. The Rohtas Industries Ltd. of which Dehri Sasaram Railway and Parsawa Mining Properties Ltd. are the sister companies closed down their operation in the year 1984 and at the instance of one Shri Ajit Kumar Singh Kesliwal, winding up proceeding being Company Petition No. 3/1984 was registered before this court. The Hon ble Company Judge of this court passed the winding up order and the Official Liquidator took charge of the assets of the company. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court and during the pendency of the writ petition several orders/directions were issued by that Court. The Supreme Court made attempt for the revival of the industry but ultimately their Lordships by a judgment and order dated 18.10.95 disposed of the writ petition and issued certain directions including that of the moratorium imposed shall cease to operate w.e.f. 31.12.95. In pursuance of direction of the Supreme Court the winding up proceeding commenced on 24.11.95. Hon ble Mr. Justice S.N. Jha, vested with the original company jurisdiction passed necessary orders for winding up and the Official Liquidator in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, took charge of the assets including assets which were in possession of the Rehabilitation Commissioner during the period of moratorium passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Hon ble Company Judge thereafter passed several orders in respect of the assets of the company. 4. Petitioners have further taken stand that prior to petitioner Dinesh Chand, one R.C. Meena was Official Liquidator in-charge of Rohtas Industries Ltd. and other assets of the Company. Hon ble Company Judge thereafter passed several orders in respect of the assets of the company. 4. Petitioners have further taken stand that prior to petitioner Dinesh Chand, one R.C. Meena was Official Liquidator in-charge of Rohtas Industries Ltd. and other assets of the Company. In pursuance of notification vide annexure-2 petitioner Dinesh Chand took charge of the company under liquidation on 12.6.96. In view of directions issued from time to time the Official Liquidator being under the control of Hon ble Company Judge of this court has been discharging his official functions of Rohtas Industries as well as his office at Patna. When the local inhabitants and some of the so-called leaders came to know about the aforesaid orders passed by the Hon ble Company Judge and execution of those orders started agitation and even did not hesitate in threatening petitioner Dinesh Chand as a result thereof the petitioner had to make request to Hon ble Company Judge for providing security and, accordingly, the SP, Rohtas provided armed security to the petitioner. 5. It has been contended that petitioner Dinesh Chand in compliance of the direction of the Hon ble Company Judge had gone to Dalmiyanagar on 6.1.97 and when the complainant/O.P. No. 2 came to know about the arrival of the petitioner he forcibly entered alongwith a large number of persons in the office of Company and started misbehaving and threatening the petitioners. It has been further contended that petitioner Dinesh Chand told the complainant/OP that he being a public servant is executing only those orders and directions which has been passed and issued by the Hon ble Company Judge but the complainant was not ready to hear the petitioner. He further contended that petitioner Ram Govind Thakur at the relevant time was working as Senior Manager whereas petitioner A.R. Verma was working as Senior Accounts Officer and petitioner Shambhu Prasad Singh as Management Accountant under the control of the Hon ble Company Judge and last petitioner Ram Krishna Prasad Sinha was working under Official Liquidator. Counsel further contended that complainant/OP in this way made a criminal trespass in the office of Official Liquidator. Counsel further contended that complainant/OP in this way made a criminal trespass in the office of Official Liquidator. He further contended that it is admitted fact that whatever has happened it is in course of discharging official duties of Official Liquidator and so no court is empowered to take cognizance of any of offence alleged to have committed without prior sanction of President of India/Central Government as required u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as Code). Learned counsel pointed out that when the fact as to filing of the complaint was brought to the notice of the Hon ble Company Judge his Lordship restrained the police from arresting the petitioner Dinesh Chand. He also contended that other petitioners were working as agents of Hon ble Company Judge for the purpose of executing the courts order. 6. From what has been mentioned above it is clear that on the alleged date of occurrence petitioner Dinesh Chand being the Official Liquidator of M/s Rohtas Industries Ltd. had gone to Dalmiyanagar to perform official duties and the act complained of against the Official Liquidator which is alleged to constitute offences, if any, was committed by him while discharging such official duty. It is not material in the present case whether in discharging his official duty petitioner Dinesh Chand acted somewhat in excess of his limits. In such a situation in my considered opinion sanction u/s 197 of the Code would be required. Cognizance in the present case has been taken without the sanction and so the same is illegal. 7. No body appears on behalf of O.P. no. 2 to argue the matter. 8. In the above facts and circumstances, both the applications are allowed and the impugned order of cognizance is hereby set aside.