Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1498 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Shukla v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-08-22

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Defects No. 9 & 12, as pointed out by the office, are ignored. 2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Shukla, petitioner in person and Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned APP appearing for the State. 3. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 382 of 2014 (G.R. No. 3935 of 2014) registered for the offences punishable under section 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 4. It has been stated by the petitioner that that he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Further submission has been advanced that on account of mala fide intention of the school authorities, as they wanted to terminate the services of the petitioner, the students had been set up to make a complaint against the petitioner, which subsequently led to institution of F.I.R. It has also been submitted that there is 50-60 days in instituting the F.I.R. and neither the same has been explained in the written report nor has the Investigating Officer taken pains to get it explained by the students or by the parents of the victims and in such circumstances, therefore, based on the delay in instituting the criminal prosecution, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner further adds that the Investigation which has been carried out by the Investigating Officer is perfunctory in nature for which the petitioner has referred to various paragraphs of the case diary which has been brought on record in this application. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent orders by virtue of which cognizance has been taken and the charge has been framed for the offence punishable under section 354 and 509 I.P.C. and in absence of any material to frame charge against the petitioner, the petitioner deserves to be exonerated from the criminal prosecution. 5. Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 6. The allegation made in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner being a teacher of Mathematics in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ramgarh had committed an immoral act against some girls student and based on their complaint and written application submitted by the father of one of the victims, the present criminal prosecution has been initiated. 7. 6. The allegation made in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner being a teacher of Mathematics in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ramgarh had committed an immoral act against some girls student and based on their complaint and written application submitted by the father of one of the victims, the present criminal prosecution has been initiated. 7. Since the case diary has been brought on record, the same has also been perused. It appears that Paragraphs-7, 8, 9 and 10 contain the statement of the victims girls who have categorically stated about the immoral act of the petitioner in touching their body on one pretext or the other. It is the consistent case of the victims that on some excuse, the boys students were asked to leave the classroom and thereafter the immoral act of the petitioner generally started. The written application submitted by the victim has also been seized by the petitioner which also forms part of the case diary. It further appears that on the complaint made by the parents of the victims, a preliminary enqiury was also conducted and the petitioner was also proceeded departmentally and since the preliminary enquiry report concluded that the petitioner had exhibited immoral sexual behaviour with the girls students, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 8. In the departmental proceeding in spite of several opportunities, the petitioner did not submit a reply to the show cause and ultimately vide order dated 22.12.2014, the services of the petitioner was terminated. 9. Coming back to the criminal case instituted against the petitioner, it appears that after framing of charge one witness has already been examined and the trial is progressing. The petitioner has been unable to substantiate his allegation of mala fide against the school authorities and has mainly stressed on the delay in instituting the F.I.R. The girls students were at the receiving end of the immoral acts committed on the part of the petitioner and since it was a very sensitive issue deliberations must have been made before instituting an F.I.R and that by itself is a sufficient reason in instituting the F.I.R. after a delay of 50-60 days from the date of the act last complained of. So far as the investigation is concerned, since the victims as well as their parents have supported the allegation against the petitioner, charge-sheet was submitted against him, pursuant to which after cognizance, charge has been framed under section 354 and 509 I.P.C. 10. The circumstances, as narrated above, do point to more than a prima facie involvement of the petitioner in committing the immoral act against the girls student and in such circumstances, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is accordingly dismissed.