Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 704 (JHR)

Ram Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-06-18

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2015
Order : This Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.06.2001 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar, in connection with P.C.R. Case No.117 of 2001, T.R. No.774 of 2001 whereby the petitioners have been directed to be summoned and face trial for the offences punishable u/s 323, 341 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the complainant has worked under E.C.L. and for that a sum of Rs. 60,000/remained unpaid. The complainant was chasing the petitioners and other officers of the company for the payment but no heed was paid as a result, the complainant filed C.W.J.C. No.6874 of 1998 but it was dismissed with observation that the complainant shall be at liberty to file application before appropriate Court. It is alleged that the petitioners assuring him to pay the dues, asked him to come to their office but he was manhandled and assaulted. Again, he went to the office but subjected to same treatment and hence he filed P.C.R. Case No.117 of 2001 in which enquiry was conducted u/s 202 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter, order impugned u/s 204 of the Cr.P.C. was passed. 3. It is pointed out that the complainant in para2 of the complaint discloses that the first incident took place on 10.11.2000 and the second date of occurrence is 09.04.2001 as per paragraph 4 of the complaint. The two witnesses examined during enquiry have said that the occurrence took place on 16.11.2000 whereas the third witness says it was 26.11.2000. Therefore, contradictory date of occurrence have been given. It is further submitted that the complainant, when failed to obtain suitable and favourable order in said criminal writ, he has filed criminal case against the petitioners for creating pressure against them for payment. He had also preferred money suit for realisation of the amount but the same stood dismissed. It is purely a malicious prosecution against the officers of E.C.L. Contradictory statements have been given. No specific overt act committed by any of the petitioners has been disclosed in the complaint which has been filed with false and frivolous allegation. Therefore, the order of cognizance passed by learned learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer. 5. No specific overt act committed by any of the petitioners has been disclosed in the complaint which has been filed with false and frivolous allegation. Therefore, the order of cognizance passed by learned learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer. 5. The complainant O.P. No.2 did not appear even after valid service of notice. 6. The contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners find support from the statement given in the complaint and the statement of witnesses recorded during enquiry. There was no occasion for the petitioners to call the complainant in their office for payment because no such direction was given in C.W.J.C. No.6874 of 1998. It is admitted case of the complainant that he was suggested vide order passed in said C.W.J.C. to approach appropriate Court and that does not mean that the complainant shall file criminal case against the petitioners who are officials of E.C.L. It appears to be a malicious prosecution launched against the petitioners for wreaking vengeance and therefore, I feel inclined to allow the prayer. Accordingly, the order dated 02.06.2001 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar, in connection with P.C.R. Case No.117 of 2001, T.R. No.774 of 2001 stands quashed. 7. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.