Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 422 (JHR)

R. S. Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2017-03-01

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Since similar issue of laws and facts are involved in these applications the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. In these applications, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Nirsa P.S. Case No. 164 of 2015 including the order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. A complaint was filed by one Mithilesh Kumar in which it was alleged that his brother and other parents had protested against the misdeed of D.A.V. Public School, Mugma. It is alleged that the nephew of the informant was made a target as a retaliation to the application submitted by the guardians against the mis-management in the School and at the behest of the accused persons various acts of torture were committed upon his nephew namely Lakshya Sharma. The complaint petition which was initially filed was referred to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. which led to institution of Nirsa P.S. Case No. 164 of 2015. Investigation culminated in submission of charge sheet pursuant to which cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 38 of 2016 are Secretary and Regional Director of D.A.V. College Management Committee and so far as the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 40 of 2016 are concerned, they are the Principals and teachers of D.A.V. Public School, Mugma. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and no offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It has been stated that so far as the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 38 of 2016 are concerned, they are not directly responsible for running the School and in absence of any evidence against these petitioners the criminal proceedings against them deserves to be quashed and set aside. It has been stated that so far as the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 38 of 2016 are concerned, they are not directly responsible for running the School and in absence of any evidence against these petitioners the criminal proceedings against them deserves to be quashed and set aside. It has also been stated that so far as the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 40 of 2016 are concerned, they also have not been attributed any specific role with respect to the alleged act of torture committed upon Lakshya Sharma. 5. Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned A.P.P., has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and has stated that there are specific allegation against all the petitioners for committing torture upon Lakshya Sharma. It has been stated that the investigation also revealed the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the offence. 6. The complaint petition which was initially filed seems to be more specific with respect to the allegation levelled against the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 40 of 2016. The petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 40 of 2016 are the Principal and teacher in the School and they were directly responsible as has been alleged of committing torture upon Lakshya Sharma. So far as the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 38 of 2016 are concerned, they seem to have been roped in only because of the fact that they are the Secretary and Regional Director of D.A.V. Management Committee. 7. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties the case diary was called for. The case diary reveals that various witnesses were examined and the allegation seems to have been concentrated only upon the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 40 of 2016. Even the statement of the victim boy recorded in Paragraph-10 of the case diary do suggest the absence of any involvement of the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 38 of 2016 as specific allegation has only been levelled against the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 40 of 2016. 8. The circumstances which could be deciphered from the First Information Report as well as the materials collected in course of investigation would suggest a prima facie case having been made out against the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 40 of 2016. 8. The circumstances which could be deciphered from the First Information Report as well as the materials collected in course of investigation would suggest a prima facie case having been made out against the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 40 of 2016. As regards the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 38 of 2016 are concerned, they appear to have been made accused only because they belong to the higher echelons of the Managing Committee and continuation of the criminal proceedings against these petitioners would be an abuse of the process of court and would lead to a miscarriage of justice. 9. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, Cr.M.P. No. 40 of 2016 is dismissed and Cr.M.P. No. 38 of 2016 is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 38 of 2016 in connection with Nirsa P. S. Case No. 164 of 2015 including the order of cognizance dated 28.09.2015 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.