Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 726 (JHR)

Reva Rani @ Rewa Rani v. State of Jharkhand

2012-05-08

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
Judgment Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State as also, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 2. Since, both these applications arise out of the same impugned order, as also the same questions of law are involved in them, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Petitioners in both these applications have challenged the order dated 21.8.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Dumka, in P.C.R Case No. 216 of 2007 corresponding to T.R No. 179 of 2010, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C was rejected by the Court below finding that on the basis of the materials on record, there was material against the petitioners for framing the charge under Sections 420, 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has accordingly, directed the accused petitioners to appear in the Court below for framing of the charge. 4. The complaint petition was filed by the complainant Opposite Party No.2, Sakuntala Devi in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka which was registered as P.C.R Case No. 216 of 2007, wherein, the petitioner Alka Rani, being the Child Development Project Officer, Dumka and the petitioner Rewa Rani, being the Supervisor in Child Development Project, Aganbari Centre, Khajuri, have been made accused along-with the other co-accused persons. It is alleged in the complaint petition that on 16.10.2006 there was a General Meeting in the village, in which, the complainant was selected as ‘Aganbari Sevika’ and when she went to submit her joining, it is alleged that the petitioners demanded Rs.25,000/-as bribe from the complainant, stating that she would be appointed only after making the payment of the amount. Thereafter, it is alleged that on 3.11.2006 the complainant had given Rs.10,000/-and again on 5.11.2006 the complainant had further given Rs.5,000/-to the petitioners, but the petitioners were adamant for getting the entire amount of Rs.25,000/-and accordingly, the complainant was not appointed and at her place, one Nilima Murmu, who was the resident of another village, was appointed. It is further alleged that on 22.5.2007, the complainant demanded her money back from the accused persons but the complainant was assaulted by the petitioners and her money was not returned back. With these allegations, the complaint petition was filed by the complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka. 5. It is further alleged that on 22.5.2007, the complainant demanded her money back from the accused persons but the complainant was assaulted by the petitioners and her money was not returned back. With these allegations, the complaint petition was filed by the complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka. 5. It appears that the statement of the complainant was recorded on S.A, wherein, she has supported her case and in the enquiry stage, she has examined four witnesses who also supported the case of the complainant, on the basis of which, prima facie case was found against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 323 of the I.P.C and the process was ordered to be issued against them. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C for their discharge, which was rejected by the Court below by order dated 21.8.2010, which has been challenged in both these revision applications. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case, which shall be evident from the fact that the selection process is entrusted to the Selection Committee, to be held in the General Meeting in the village and accordingly, on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the appointment of Aganbari Sevika is made. Learned counsel has further submitted that though the complainant had earlier filed application for the post of Aganbari Sevika showing herself to be a matriculate, which is the minimum educational qualification for the said post, but during the selection process, it was found that she was not a matriculate, rather she gave in writing that she had passed only class VI and accordingly her candidature was not considered. Subsequently, she was appointed on the post of Aganbari Sahaika for which she was qualified, but these facts have been concealed in the complaint petition. 7. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the guidelines issued by the State Government as contained in letter dated 5.6.2003, which has been brought on record as Annexure 2 in Cr.Revision No. 919 of 2010, which would show that the minimum qualification for the post of Aganbari Sevika is matriculate and it was also required that she should be the permanent resident of the concerned village. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure 3 in Cr.Revision No. 919 of 2010 which is the proceeding of the meetings dated 9.3.2007 and 10.3.2007 of the Selection Committee. In the said proceeding, it is stated that the complainant had filed an application for the post of Aganbari Sevika and had also produced her matriculation certificate, issued by Deoghar Hindi Vidyapith, but in course of enquiry, she herself gave in writing that she had never appeared in the said examination and she had read only up-to class VI. Accordingly, she was not recommended for the post of Aganbari Sevika. The said minute of the meeting shows that the petitioner was considered for the post of Aganbari Sahaika. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that in that view of the matter, the entire allegations made against the petitioners are completely falsified and the complaint petition was filed against the petitioners with false allegations. As the complainant herself had not approached the Court with clean hands, it is a fit case, in which, the petitioners ought to have been discharged by the Court below. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that these documents were available before the Court below and were also considered while considering the application filed by the petitioners under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C., but still, the petitioners were not discharged by the Court below, which is absolutely illegal and bad in eyes of law. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is fit to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that in any event, the petitioner in Cr.Revision No. 947 of 2010, is only a Supervisor and she had no authority either to appoint or reject the candidature of the complainant and accordingly, it cannot be believed that the petitioner was demanding any bribe from the complainant. Leaned counsel accordingly, submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and it is a fit case for discharge of the petitioners. 9. Leaned counsel accordingly, submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and it is a fit case for discharge of the petitioners. 9. Learned counsel for the Opposite party No.2 complainant, on the other hand, submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioners to have demanded the bribe of Rs.25,000/-from the complainant and also to have accepted the bribe of Rs.15,000/-, as also to have assaulted the complainant when she demanded her money back. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of these facts, the allegations are squarely made out against the petitioners and accordingly, it is not a fit case for discharge at this stage, as the falsity or otherwise of the allegations has to be seen in course of trial and the same cannot be looked into at this stage. Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant was having the minimum qualification for being appointed as Aganbari Sevika as she had passed the equivalent to matriculation examination from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar and she had also filed her educational certificate before the Selection Committee. Learned counsel has further submitted that it has falsely been stated in the minutes that the petitioners had withdrawn her candidature, stating that she had passed only class VI. 10. Learned counsel also drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit filed in Cr.Revision No. 947 of 2010 on behalf of the opposite party No.2, wherein it is stated that the complainant had never withdrawn her candidature for the post of Aganbari Sevika and it is all false creations of the accused persons as the complainant could not fulfill the demand of the accused persons. It is also stated in the said counter affidavit that as the bribe was not paid to the petitioners, the proceedings had been drawn by the petitioners. As there is no denial by the petitioners of these statements made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below and the same cannot be interfered with at this stage. 11. As there is no denial by the petitioners of these statements made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below and the same cannot be interfered with at this stage. 11. After having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that on the basis of the allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint petition, the case is squarely made out against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 406, 323 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears that though the case of the petitioner is that the complainant opposite party No.2 was not qualified for the post of Aganbari Sevika, but annexure-3 which is the minutes of the selection committee, clearly shows that the complainant had filed her certificate equivalent to matriculation issued from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar and it is nowhere mentioned in the said minutes that the said certificate was found to be forged. The only thing which has been stated in the said minutes is that the complainant had given in writing that she has not appeared in the examination and she had only passed class VI. This fact has been squarely denied by the complainant in her counter affidavit and the same has not been rebutted by the petitioners. 12. In that view of the matter, I find that at this stage, there is nothing on record to show that the allegations against the petitioners are false. I further find that on the basis of the allegations made against the petitioners, the offences are clearly made out against the petitioners and there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below, rejecting the application for discharge of the petitioners at this stage. 13. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned order, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in both these applications, which are, accordingly, dismissed.