Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1011 (RAJ)

Ramswroop Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2021-07-02

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2021
ORDER 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dudu, district Jaipur in criminal case no.201/2021 whereby cognizance under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC has been taken against the petitioner as well as for quashing the FIR no.329 dated 27.08.2021 registered at Police Station Dudu, district Jaipur Rural under the aforesaid offences. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Driver in the office of Sub-divisional Officer, Dudu, Jaipur on 10.12.2007 on daily wages basis. He submitted that vide verbal order dated 07.05.2015, his services were terminated which, being in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity of' the Act of 1947, was set aside by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur in LCR no.156/2017 (old no.24/2016) vide its award dated 07.02.2020 and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with its continuity and 50% of the back wages from the date of termination of his services. He stated that the aforesaid award was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondents therein by way of SBCWP No. 13432/2020. Learned counsel submitted that when he filed a petition under Section 29 of the Act of 1947 for taking action against the District Collector as well as SDO, Jaipur for breach of the award in his favour, to victimise and harass him; an FIR came to be registered against him levelling false allegation of obtaining services as contractual Driver on 11.01.2012 claiming himself to be an ex-service man. Learned counsel contended that during course of the investigation, nothing incriminating was found against him; but, charge sheet came to be filed against him under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC upon which, learned trial Court has taken cognizance against him vide order impugned dated 30.03.2021. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the order dated 30.03.2021 is non-speaking and does not assign any reason for taking cognizance. He argued that from the statements of the prosecution witnesses as well as the other material collected by the investigating agency in the shape of documents, no offence as alleged is made out against him. He, therefore, prayed that the criminal misc. petition be allowed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 5. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the record. 6. He, therefore, prayed that the criminal misc. petition be allowed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 5. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the record. 6. The award dated 07.02.2020 reveals that the petitioner was appointed in the office of Sub-divisional Officer, Dudu w.e.f. 10.12.2007, a finding which remained maintained upto this Court as the writ petition preferred by the respondent therein came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.01.2021. The award further reveals that it was nowhere case of the respondent therein that the petitioner was appointed as contractual Driver on 11.01.2012. The FIR in question came to be lodged on 27.08.2020 i.e. after more than 8 years and 7 months from the date the petitioner is alleged to have obtained employment in the office of SDO, Dudu fraudulently. This delay becomes significant especially in view of the fact that the petitioner has applied with Labour Commissioner, Jaipur on 07.02.2020 to take action against the Collector as well as SDO under Section 29 of the Act of 1947 for breach of the award and thereafter, this FIR came to be lodged. 7. During course of the investigation, the declaration dated 11.01.2012 as well as undertaking dated even both furnished by the petitioner were recovered. In none of the documents the petitioner has claimed himself to be an ex-service man; rather, in Clause 1 of the declaration, the space requiring the petitioner to mention name/number of his unit, his rank, the date of his retirement, length of service, has been left vacant. Similarly, in his ration card, identity card issued by the Election Commission of India and pan card recovered during course of the investigation, the petitioner has not claimed himself to be an ex-army man. Statements of Shri Mahendra Singh, the then HRD Manager, Jaipur Ex-serviceman Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. (for brevity 'the Society'), Devi Singh, the then Chairman of Society and KaranSingh, present Secretary of the Society, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reflect that under the letter dated 08.05.2003 issued by the Devasthan, Waqf and Sainik Welfare Department, State of Rajasthan, the Society was authorised to employ 10% of private persons also in addition to 90% from ex-service man. They have further stated that neither the petitioner ever claimed himself to be an ex-army man nor, the society, in turn, reckoned him as an ex-army man while recommending his appointment as the appointment order is bereft of his unit, rank, length of service and date of retirement, the mandatory requisite for recommending an ex-army man. None of the other prosecution witnesses has stated that the petitioner claimed himself to be an ex-army man either at a time of seeking appointment or thereafter. As a matter of fact, this Court could not find any incriminating material on record to satisfy the ingredients necessary to constitute offences either under the provisions of Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC or of any other offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. This appears to be a case of misunderstanding as to the status of the petitioner on the part of respondent on account of his appointment having been recommended by the Ex-serviceman Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. on account of its name; otherwise, this Court does not find any misrepresentation either on the part of the petitioner or on the part of society claiming his status as ex-service man. 8. Resultantly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 30.03.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dudu in criminal case no.201/2021, Ramswaroop Vs. State as well as the FIR no.329 dated 27.08.2020 registered at Police Station, Dudu, district Jaipur Rural are quashed and set aside.