Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 323 (JHR)

Umesh Prasad Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-11

R.R.PRASAD

body2016
Order : Both the applications were heard together, as any finding arrived at in Cr.M.P. No. 2335 of 2012 would have bearing on the other application i.e. Cr.M.P. No. 1408 of 2014. Cr. M. P. No. 2335 of 2012 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 704 of 2011, including the order dated 28.8.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offenses punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3(1))(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been taken against the petitioner. 3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of. 4. A written report was submitted by the opposite party no. 2 before the Officer In-charge of Harijan Police Station, Ranchi alleging therein that the opposite party no. 2, posted as Junior Engineer in Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Sonahatu, is being subjected to torture by the petitioner, Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Ranchi, as he belongs to Adivasi community. In the meeting, the petitioner always scolded him by saying that he is like animal who does not know as to how reply of a letter is made. He used to hurl abuses in presence of other persons. Further it has been alleged that the petitioner by saying so called him (opposite party no. 2) in his Chambers and got his signature affixed over a letter dated 19.5.2010 forcibly and that the petitioner always used to hurl abuses on him, as he belongs to the Adivasi community. Further it has been disclosed that the petitioner was misbehaving, as he was carrying some kind of grudge over the matter relating to construction of high cycle tubewell which started functioning from 31.7.2009 and thereby he had submitted the final bill through MB Book (page 88-100 and page 76-89) which has been acknowledged by the petitioner vide its letter no. 1602 dated 7.8.2009 and in that event, there was no justification for asking for the real status of the project vide letter no 951 dated 19.5.2010 and by getting his signature over the letter dated 19.5.2010, the petitioner intended to implicate him in some case. 5. 1602 dated 7.8.2009 and in that event, there was no justification for asking for the real status of the project vide letter no 951 dated 19.5.2010 and by getting his signature over the letter dated 19.5.2010, the petitioner intended to implicate him in some case. 5. On the basis of the said written report, a case was registered as SC/ST P.S. Case No. 21/2010 under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3(1))(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioner and the matter was taken up for investigation. 6. During investigation, the police did find all the allegations to be false and thereby submitted charge-sheet. Thereafter, a notice was issued upon the opposite party no. 2 who did appear and filed a protest petition which was treated to be a complaint after final form was accepted by the court. After institution of the complaint case, statement of the opposite party no. 2 was taken on solemn affirmation and the case was taken for inquiry during which witnesses made statements almost to the same effect as is there in the FIR. Therefore, the court having found the case prima facie true took cognizance of the offences against the petitioner vide its order dated 28.8.2012 which is under challenge. 7. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that for increasing efficiency of high cycle tube-well, work order was issued to M/s Bharat V. Patel which was being done in the supervision of opposite party no. 2 being Junior Engineer. The opposite party no. 2 did report that the supply of water is being done and a final bill through MB Book No. 449 (page 88-100) and MB Book No. 368 (page 76-89) had been submitted before the office of this petitioner on 26.12.2009 though in the MB Book it had been reported by the opposite party no. 2 that 5 HP submersible motor pump, installed by the contractor, has been taken away by him and has kept with him. Further it has been noted that the water tower has not been constructed as per the approved map. In such situation, how wrong it was on the part of the opposite party no. 2 to say that the water is being supplied through that pump. In fact, the opposite party no. Further it has been noted that the water tower has not been constructed as per the approved map. In such situation, how wrong it was on the part of the opposite party no. 2 to say that the water is being supplied through that pump. In fact, the opposite party no. 2 was in connivance with the contractor who when was found not executing the work as per schedule he was repeatedly asked to complete the work. In spite of giving such notice the contractor without executing the work raised bills of Rs. 10.6 lakhs. In that event, it was written to the contractor that though the work has not been done still it is being reported that the work has been done. At the same time, a notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 to show cause as to under what circumstance it has been reported that the work has successfully been done though the water is being not supplied through that pump. Under this situation, when the opposite party no. 2 found himself under the soup, he lodged the instant case which can easily be said to be attended with mala fide and thereby the instant proceeding is fit to be quashed. 8. As against this, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, submits that numbers of documents have been filed on behalf of the petitioner to make out a defence which cannot be looked into at this stage, rather the petitioner may take all these defence during trial. 9. In this regard, it was submitted that filing of numbers of documents itself suggest that the allegation made against the petitioner is prima facie true and thereby the proceeding never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find from the documents annexed with the FIR or referred to in the FIR that for enhancing efficiency of high cycle tube-well, contract was awarded to M/s Bharat V Patel which was being executed by the contractor-S. Mumtaj Ahmad on behalf of M/s Bharat V. Patel. In due course, when it was reported by the opposite party no. In due course, when it was reported by the opposite party no. 2 that the work has been completed and there has been supply of water through that pump, a notice was issued to him by the petitioner asking him under what circumstance it has been reported that the supply is being made when the work has not been completed. 11. Further, it appears from the FIR that it has been stated by the opposite party no. 2 that the work is being supplied since 31.7.2009 and thereby the final bill has already been submitted vide MB Book No. 449 (page 88-100) and MB Book No. 368 (page 76-89). The said MB book is said to have been submitted on 26.12.2009. However, from perusal of the MB books, it does appear that it has been noted by the opposite party no. 2 himself that the contractor has taken away submersible motor pump which had earlier been installed and that water tower has not been constructed as per the approved map. In all probabilities in that situation, letter dated 19.5.2010 seems to have been issued by the petitioner to the contractor but the allegation what has been levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner forced the opposite party no. 2 to make signature over a letter by abusing him. This allegation in the facts and circumstances appears to be improbable, as had the petitioner forced the opposite party no. 2 to write a letter or to put his signature over a letter already written at the instance of the petitioner, there would not have been mentioning of the act justifying the action on the part of the opposite party no. 2. 12. In this regard, it be stated that in the said letter it has been stated that when the contractor raised claim of wrong measurement, objection was taken by the opposite party no. 2. Had the petitioner intended to put the opposite party no. 2 in a wrong box, this kind of justification on the part of the opposite party no. 2 would not have been there. 13. Under the circumstances, the proceeding seems to have been maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 2 in a wrong box, this kind of justification on the part of the opposite party no. 2 would not have been there. 13. Under the circumstances, the proceeding seems to have been maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. At the same time, the allegation in the facts and circumstances appears to be absurd and inherently improbable for the reasons stated above. 14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 704 of 2011, including the order dated 28.8.2012, taking cognizance against the petitioner, is hereby quashed in view of the ratio laid down in a case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal {1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335}. 15. In the result, this application stands allowed. Cr. M. P. No. 1408 of 2014 16. In view of the order passed in Cr. M. P. No. 2335 of 2012, this application has become infructuous. 17. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed as infructuous.