Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 575 (JHR)

Benu Rani v. State of Jharkhand

2015-05-01

R.R.PRASAD

body2015
ORDER : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned senior counsel appearing for the O. P. No.2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 17.06.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.492 of 2009 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against both the petitioners. 3. From the perusal of the records, it does appear that an F.I.R. being Bariatu P.S. Case No.79 of 2007 was lodged by the complainant on 21.05.2007, alleging therein, that Smt. Benu Rani, petitioner No.1 used to remain absent from the duty but her husband, Dr. Ranjit Singh, petitioner No.2 used to make forged signature and thereby, the salaries were being drawn. 4. The matter was investigated upon, during which the case was found to be as of mistake of facts. Thereafter a protest petition was filed which was treated to be a Complaint Case being Complaint Case No.492 of 2009, alleging therein that Smt. Benu Rani was appointed in the year 1984 as Rehabilitation Assistant on temporary basis for a period of six months. Subsequently on 08.01.1990 her services was duly terminated. In spite of that, she continued to draw salary as well as other allowances like a regular employee by playing fraud and making false attendance in connivance with her husband, Dr. Ranjit Singh (petitioner No.2). The complainant was examined on S.A. wherein he stated that in spite of post being abolished, Smt. Benu Rani continued on the said post and went on drawing salary. 5. Further, it was stated that in the attendance sheet firstly initial was made by Dr. Ranjit Singh, husband of Smt. Benu Rani and subsequently over the initial Benu was written and thereby, it is alleged that accused No.2, Dr. Ranjit Singh committed forgery. The matter was posted for inquiry. During inquiry, witnesses were examined. Thereupon the court vide impugned order took cognizance of the offences which is under-challenge in this application. 6. Mr. Ranjit Singh, husband of Smt. Benu Rani and subsequently over the initial Benu was written and thereby, it is alleged that accused No.2, Dr. Ranjit Singh committed forgery. The matter was posted for inquiry. During inquiry, witnesses were examined. Thereupon the court vide impugned order took cognizance of the offences which is under-challenge in this application. 6. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though the allegation has been made in the complaint that Smt. Benu Rani continued on the Post of Rehabilitation Assistant though the post had been abolished, but that allegation was never substantiated rather from the documents furnished before this Court which have been issued by the Government are unimpeachable in character, it would appear that the post of Rehabilitation Assistant had never been abolished and till date the post is existing and thereby, if the salaries have been drawn by Smt. Benu Rani, petitioner No.1, she did not commit any wrong. 7. Further, it was submitted that the court has taken cognizance of the offences of forgery simply on the allegation made by the complainant which cannot be said to be sufficient in absence of any expert opinion and thereby, it committed wrong in taking cognizance of offence of forgery and hence, the court can be said to have committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences without there being sufficient material showing commission of offence of forgery and also the other offences. 8. As against this, Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the co01.05.2015mplainant submits that this is not the stage to go into the question as to whether post was existing or not or that Smt. Benu Rani, the petitioner No.2 continued on the post which had never been abolished. 9. Further, it was submitted that the Court after having found the allegation, prima facie to be true, has taken cognizance of the offences and thereby, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be interfered with. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that when the F.I.R. was lodged on the allegation upon which subsequently complaint was lodged, investigation was made and during investigation, the I.O. found the case as that of mistake of fact and thereby, it submitted final form. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that when the F.I.R. was lodged on the allegation upon which subsequently complaint was lodged, investigation was made and during investigation, the I.O. found the case as that of mistake of fact and thereby, it submitted final form. Subsequently when the complaint was lodged, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code was taken without assigning any reason and thereby, the court did commit illegality in view of the decision rendered in a case of “Nupur Talwar-versus-Central Bureau of Investigation, [ (2012) 2 SCC 188 ]” and also in view of the decision rendered in a case of “M/s. GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust-versus-M/s. India Infoline Limited, [2013 (2) East. Crl. Cases, 326 (SC)]”, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that the Court, in such situation, requires to pass order by assigning reason but since no reason has been assigned for holding that prima facie materials are there, order impugned is fit to be set aside. 11. Admittedly, the Police upon investigating the case found the case as that of mistake of fact. Thereupon when the complaint was lodged cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code was taken without assigning any reason as to on what basis he has come to the conclusion that prima facie materials are there against the petitioner. 12. In that event, the impugned order dated 17.06.2011, taking cognizance of the offences, against the petitioners, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court concerned for passing a fresh order in accordance with law, within reasonable period, preferably within a period of three months. 13. In the result, this application stands disposed of.