Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1140 (MP)

Ram Sajeevan Kuvind v. Kaushlendra Sinha

2017-11-08

S.K.PALO

body2017
ORDER 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under section 482 of CrPC to invoke the inherent powers of this Court and to quash the order dated 22.9.2015, passed by Special Judge under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.362/2015, wherein the order dated 26.6.2015 passed by JMFC, Bhopal in unregistered criminal case dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 203 of the CrPC, has been affirmed. 2. Bereft of the unnecessary details the facts requisite for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner filed a criminal complaint case under section 200 of the CrPC before the learned JMFC for offence under sections 420, 406, 294, 506, 500 and 306 read with section 34 of IPC against the respondents. 3. In the complaint it is alleged that the complainant/petitioner is a member of SC and was working as Office Assistant Grade- 6, in Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) since 1991 satisfactorily and with sincerity. The respondent No.1 called him on 25th July, 2013 and asked to report at Bhopal Office on 26.7.2014. He allegedly abused him and humiliated him calling his caste name and threatened him of removing from the job. Complainant also alleged that he was transferred to Mumbai without any facility, as a mode of punishment High Court of Madhya Pradesh after demoting him on August, 2013. He also moved application before Redressal Grievance Cell but nothing came out. The petitioner lodged report before the police. But no action was taken. Therefore, he lodged a complaint before AJK but closure report was filed. Hence, he filed the criminal complaint case, alleging conspiracy by the respondents to harass the honest petitioner. The petitioner filed complaint case before learned JMFC. After the preliminary inquiry, the learned JMFC passed the order impugned on 26.6.2015, wherein the criminal complaint case was dismissed stating that it was after thought and deliberately intended to take revenge against the officers of CII. 4. Criminal Revision No.362/2015 preferred by the petitioner decided on 22.9.2015 and the order of the learned JMFC has been affirmed. Therefore, the present petition for quashing the order dated 22.9.2015 and 26.6.2015 and to direct further inquiry in the matter regarding registering of offence against the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the respondents are the officers of CII, do not have any personal grudge against the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition for quashing the order dated 22.9.2015 and 26.6.2015 and to direct further inquiry in the matter regarding registering of offence against the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the respondents are the officers of CII, do not have any personal grudge against the petitioner. Whatever action they have taken are taken administratively. They never had any idea about the caste of the petitioner, therefore, humiliating the complainant by his caste name is unimaginable. 6. It is also contended that the petitioner has not impleaded the State of M.P as a party in the petition nor the concerning police station has been impleaded as a party though the grievance of the petitioner is not registering a crime. 7. Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) is a society registered under the Societies Act is a pioneer which works for the promotion of trade and industry. The offices are situated in almost all the States High Court of Madhya Pradesh countrywide. Petitioner was working in CII. 8. On 16.8.2013, the petitioner was transferred to Mumbai. On 19.8.2013, the petitioner proceeded on leave which was duly approved. On 2nd September, 2013 to 5th September, 2013 the petitioner joined at Mumbai and did not raise any objection. On 6th September, 2013 the petitioner proceeded on leave for various reasons. The leave was approved. On 6th November, 2013 the petitioner rejoined Mumbai and worked for three days and did not raise any issue during this period. On 9th November, 2013 the petitioner did not resume office, therefore, reminders were sent. On 9th January, 2014 when the petitioner did not join, numerous reminders were sent. He levelled allegation against the management of bias. On 25th January, 2014 he made false accusation of bias and intimidation. On 2nd May, 2014 the petitioner continued absent. Therefore, a Departmental Inquiry Committee was constituted for he remained absent for six months un-authorizedly. 9. On 15th May, 2014 the petitioner filed a false complaint against the management alleging harassment under the SC/ST Act before the Police Station AJk. On 13th June, 2014, the inquiry report was sent to the petitioner and was given opportunity to the petitioner to present on 23rd June, 2014 but the petitioner did not comply. On 23rd June, 2014 the petitioner lodged new complaint. On 14th July, 2014 termination order was sent to the petitioner. On 13th June, 2014, the inquiry report was sent to the petitioner and was given opportunity to the petitioner to present on 23rd June, 2014 but the petitioner did not comply. On 23rd June, 2014 the petitioner lodged new complaint. On 14th July, 2014 termination order was sent to the petitioner. On 18th July, 2014 again termination order was sent which was returned back with the endorsement that the respondent that the respondent is out of town. On 4th August, 2014 counsel of the CII sent letter to the petitioner along with cheques amounting to Rs.1,09.556/- and Rs.28,929/- which were returned back. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh petitioner has levelled allegations which do not have any basis. Therefore, learned JMFC refused to take cognizance and the learned revisional Court has also affirmed the same. This petition is, therefore, filed by the petitioner intending to harass the respondent/officers when false, frivolous and cooked up allegations. Because of the service matter, the petitioner, if felt aggrieved, he could have sought relief in the civil Court or Labour Court, instead alleging false allegations on false grounds to harass the respondents, he has filed this complaint. 11. Perused the unregistered criminal case (Ramsajeevan v. Kaushlendra Singh and others) and the order of the revisional Court dated 22.9.2015. 12. The petitioner has placed reliance on Pistabai v. Narendra Singh [ 2010(1) JLJ 360 ], wherein it has been held that the revisional Court cannot go into proposed defence of accused at the time of considering a revision against the order under section 304 taking cognizance of offence. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon on Major Subodh Shukla v. Major R.S. Dudee and another [ 2007(1) MPHT 431 ], wherein the order dismissing a complaint under section 203 CrPC was allowed by the revisional Court. The revisional Court has no jurisdiction to direct the Magistrate to register the case against the accused. The revisional Court can make is to direct the Magistrate to make further inquiry. It is not oblique to notice and hear the accused at the stage of revision against the order under section 203 of the CrPC. The accused has no right of hearing at that time. 13. The revisional Court can make is to direct the Magistrate to make further inquiry. It is not oblique to notice and hear the accused at the stage of revision against the order under section 203 of the CrPC. The accused has no right of hearing at that time. 13. Petitioner has also relied upon National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz [ 2013(1) MPWN 64 SC], wherein it is held the "Chief Judicial Magistrate has to carry out an inquiry or order investigation as contemplated under section 202, CrPC- such High Court of Madhya Pradesh investigation is different from the investigation contemplated in section 156, CrPC." 14. The petitioner further placed reliance on Vishwa Jagriti Mission (Regd) and others v. M.P. Mansinghka Charities and another [2015(3) MPHT 378], wherein it has been held that the "inferences by Income tax Authorities and by the Investigation Officer could not be taken to be final and on the basis of those inferences, complaint could not be quashed- Further the burden to prove that accused had no knowledge that documents were forged lay on the present applicants/accused persons- There is no ground to quash the criminal proceeding under section 482 CrPC. 15. On perusal of the complaint, it indicates that the petitioner was working with the CII. Till 25th July, 2013. No such allegation of any caste based humiliation was made. It indicates that the petitioner is wreaking vengeance against the respondents by filing this complaint. There is no reason for the respondents that they would unnecessarily commit such offence against the petitioner. The petitioner has mentioned offence under section 306 of IPC which is misconceived and it shows the intend of the petitioner. The averment in the complaint prima facie shows that the departmental action has been initiated against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has preferred this criminal complaint. 16. The allegations made are patently absurd and inherently improbable because a prudent man can ever reach to such a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the respondents. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to say that the learned Courts below have acted on the basis of the police report nor it can be said that the Courts below have considered the defence of the respondents. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to say that the learned Courts below have acted on the basis of the police report nor it can be said that the Courts below have considered the defence of the respondents. The citations placed by the complainant/petitioner before this Court, High Court of Madhya Pradesh are on different footings and, hence, of no avail to the petitioner. 17. This Court do not find it a fit case for interference with the concurrent findings of the Court below and the orders passed by the Courts below. Therefore, this petition sans merit and is, therefore, dismissed.