Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 496 (JHR)

Kamal Kishore Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2015-04-20

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
ORDER Heard Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Godda (T) P.S. Case No. 225 of 1999 corresponding to G. R. No. 646 of 1999 including the order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The prosecution case arising out of a written complaint made by the informant, Jai Kumar Das, is to the effect that he had gone to the Office of the Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D. where he is employed as Head Assistant and on demand of salary on 13.01.1999 the Executive Engineer is alleged to have stated that his L.P.C. has already been issued. It has further been alleged that in the meantime some of the officials had come and abused him in the name of his caste. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Godda (T) P.S. Case No. 225 of 1999 had been instituted. 5. Investigation commenced and since the allegations were detected to be unfounded, the Final Form was submitted on 30.10.2000. Thereupon, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda differed with the report of the Investigating Officer and vide order dated 12.02.2002 was pleased to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections ¾ of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and thereafter, the case was sent for trial to the court of learned Special Judge from where summons were issued to the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire allegations are false and concocted and has been instituted only as a retaliatory measure on account of reversion of the informant to the post of Correspondence Clerk. It has further been submitted that although the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 30.01.1999 but the written report was submitted on 15.07.1999 and no explanation has been given by the informant with respect to the delay in instituting the criminal case. It has further been submitted that although the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 30.01.1999 but the written report was submitted on 15.07.1999 and no explanation has been given by the informant with respect to the delay in instituting the criminal case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further adds that the written report itself discloses that the only issue involved was with respect to relieving the petitioner for joining at Bhagalpur and non-payment of the salary for a year. He, therefore, submits that the grievance of the petitioner is basically related to a departmental action and such act cannot be said to be constituting a criminal act on the part of the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the informant was abused in the name of his caste and that it was on account of the petitioner that the informant did not receive salary for a year and that it was at the instance of the petitioner that the informant was relieved to join his post at Bhagalpur. It has also been submitted that the Investigating Officer has submitted Final Form but the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda had differed with the Final Form and had taken cognizance after perusal of the case diary from which apparently a case is made out against the petitioner. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the records, I find that based on the allegations made by the informant that the petitioner is alleged to have abused the informant in the name of his caste and that it was also alleged that it was at the instance of the petitioner that the informant was relieved on 07.08.1998 and was not paid his salary the criminal case was instituted. Upon investigation, the police having found the case to be false had submitted Final Form to which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda differed and ultimately vide order dated 12.02.2002 was pleased to take cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Perusal of the impugned order dated 12.02.2002 reveals that based on the statements of the witnesses at Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 cognizance had been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda. Perusal of the impugned order dated 12.02.2002 reveals that based on the statements of the witnesses at Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 cognizance had been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda. Vide order dated 14.08.2006 the carbon copy of the case diary was called for and which is on record. On going through the case diary the same reveals that the statements of other witnesses were also recorded at Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the case diary and that the letters with respect to relieving the petitioner as well as reverting back the informant from the post of Head Clerk to Correspondence Clerk was also incorporated in the case diary. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda has made no reference with the other materials which have surfaced during the course of investigation and for the purposes of taking cognizance only Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the case diary was referred. Without expressing any opinion with respect to the investigation which has been recorded in the case diary other than Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 it would be in the fitness of things that a fresh order be passed on perusal of the entire case diary. The order dated 12.02.2002 reveals non consideration of the entire materials available in the case diary and although the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda had the power under law to differ with the findings of the Investigating Officer but the same has to be on the basis of the evidences which have surfaced in course of the investigation coupled with sound reasonings. In such circumstances, since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda as is apparent from a perusal of the impugned order dated 12.02.2002 has only considered part of the materials available in the case diary, the order dated 12.02.2002 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 9. Accordingly, there being merit in this application the same is allowed. In such circumstances, since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda as is apparent from a perusal of the impugned order dated 12.02.2002 has only considered part of the materials available in the case diary, the order dated 12.02.2002 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 9. Accordingly, there being merit in this application the same is allowed. The order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the materials which have been recorded in the entire case diary.