Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1043 (PAT)

Pawan Kumar Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-29

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT RAKESH KUMAR, J. 1. The sole petitioner, who was at the relevant time Circle Officer, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 16.2.2000 passed by Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Jehanabad in T.R.No.763 of 2000, arising out of Complaint Case No.563 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint case vide Complaint Case No. 563 of 1999, under Sections 323, 504, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, disclosing therein that the complainant is a P.D.S. dealer and the petitioner had unauthorisedly passed an order of suspension of allotment in favour of the complainant and other seven similarly situated dealers. Thereafter, on 11.12.1999 at about 2.00 P.M., while the complainant visited the Circle Office, Kako to get information regarding allotment, the petitioner through his peon called the complainant in his chamber and, thereafter the petitioner abused him by naming the complainant by his caste and, thereafter the petitioner also assaulted the complainant with fists. In the said occurrence, it was further alleged that the petitioner forcibly took his wrist watch, which was for an amount of Rs.500A . After filing the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of his case, the complainant examined seven witnesses. The learned Magistrate, after examining the materials available on the record, by the impugned order has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. It was admitted on 29.11.2001. While admitting the case, this Court had directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceedings in T.R.No.763 /2000 pending in the court of Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Jehanabad, shall. remain stayed and the order of stay is still continuing. 4. Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that the complaint petition was filed maliciously. remain stayed and the order of stay is still continuing. 4. Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that the complaint petition was filed maliciously. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the district of Jehanabad was a disturbed area, dealers of Public Distribution System were not supplying articles to the Red-card holders in accordance with law, a high level decision was taken and the District Magistrate, Jehanabad selected the sincere officers for discharging the duty of Supply Officer and, accordingly, some of the officers including this petitioner were asked to discharge the duty of Supply Officer in addition to their own duties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner was the Circle Officer. However, with a view to proper distribution, this petitioner was also authorized to discharge the duty of Supply Officer. While he was discharging his duty as Supply Officer, he had received a complaint under the signature of several villagers, wherein it was alleged that several Red-card holders were not being supplied the essential articles by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in compliance with the direction of the District Magistrate as well as the Sub Divisional Magistrate, this petitioner directed some of the suppliers to stop allotment in favour of the complainant and other similarly situated six P.D.S.dealers. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-8 to the petition, which is a typed copy of letter No. 460 dated 9.12.1999 issued from the office of the Circle Officer-cum-Block Supply Officer, Kako. By the said letter, four suppliers and Assistant Godown Manager, Bihar State Food Corporation Ltd., Jehanabad were directed to stop allotment in favour of the complainant, whose name finds place at serial no.4, and six others P.D.S. dealers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the action was taken by the petitioner, while discharging his official duty only with a view to create a defence maliciously the present complaint petition was filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the action was taken by the petitioner, while discharging his official duty only with a view to create a defence maliciously the present complaint petition was filed. He further submits that since by letter dated 9.12.1999, the petitioner had directed for stopping allotment to the complainant, there was no occasion for the petitioner to call the complainant in his chamber on 11.12.1999 nor there was any occasion for the complainant to visit and contact the petitioner and, as such, the allegations made in paragraph 6 of the complaint petition appears to be false and concocted. He further submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is established that the complaint petition was filed arbitrarily and maliciously and, as such, the proceeding in the complaint case may not be allowed to further proceed and he has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance as well as subsequent proceedings in Complaint Case No. 563 of 1999. Sri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing this petition has argued that in support of the complainant six witnesses were examined. So far as the credential of witnesses are concerned, against all the six witnesses, who were P.D.S. dealers like the complainant, this petitioner by the same order had directed for stopping their allotment and as such, the evidence of those witnesses is itself sufficient to indicate that the entire prosecution is malicious. 5. Sri Umesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and he submits that this Court may not look those documents at this stage, which can be relied upon or referred to at the stage of defence. He further submits that the contents of the complaint petition disclose commission of offence and, as such, while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has committed no mistake. He further submits that the order of cognizance is in accordance with law and, accordingly, the petition may be rejected. 6. Despite of issuance of notice to Opp. Party no.2, none has come forward to defend the case of Opp. Party no.2. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and State, I have also examined the materials available on the record. 6. Despite of issuance of notice to Opp. Party no.2, none has come forward to defend the case of Opp. Party no.2. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and State, I have also examined the materials available on the record. The record categorically shows that before filing the complaint petition itself, the petitioner had taken action against the complainant, who was a P.D.S. dealer. The record further shows that several irregularities and illegalities were found in distribution against the complainant and, thereafter while discharging his official duty, the petitioner in compliance with the orders of the District Magistrate and the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide Memo No.883 dated 27.11.1999 directed the suppliers as well as Assistant Godown Manager, Bihar State Food Corporation Ltd. not to make further allotment in favour of the complainant and similarly situated dealers. Vide Annexure-8 the petitioner had stopped allotment in favour of seven P.D.S. dealers, which include the complainant. In the present case examination of remaining six P.D.S. dealers as Complainant witnesses is itself indicative of the fact that with an oblique motive, the present complaint was filed and, as such, I am of the opinion that allowing the further proceeding in the present case will certainly amount to allowing the abuse of the process of the court. 8. Accordingly, with a view to prevent the abuse of the process of the court as well as for the ends of justice, the order of cognizance dated 16.2.2000 is hereby set aside and all subsequent proceedings in Complaint Case against the petitioner is also quashed.