Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 626 (JHR)

Md. Abid Hussain v. State of Jharkhand

2023-05-04

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Notice upon opposite party no.2 has been effected. On 02.09.2022, nobody had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and that is how the case was adjourned with a view to provide one more opportunity by way of last indulgence to opposite party no.2 and it was observed that if opposite party no.2 will not appear on the next date, appropriate order shall be passed on the basis of materials available on record. Today when the matter is called out, nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no.2 and that is why this matter is being heard in absence of opposite party no.2. 2. Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 16.09.2013 including the entire criminal proceedings in connection with PCR Case No.451 of 2011, pending in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka. 4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the husband of the complainant was posted as Cooperative Extension Officer in Shikaripara Block and four LAMPS were allotted to him. It was further alleged that the Block Development Officer, Shikaripara (petitioner) sealed LAMPS godown in July, 2011 and later on he opened the seal. It was also alleged that the Block Development Officer, Shikaripara sealed LAMPS godown and for opening the seal, he demanded extortion money of Rs.2.00 lacs and threatened the husband of the complainant to implicate him in false case. It was further alleged that due to threatening given by the Block Development Officer, the husband of the complainant felt difficulty and he afraid from threatening and he proceeded on leave and came to home and narrated the entire matter to his wife-the complainant/opposite party no.2. It was also alleged that on 12.09.2011, the husband of the complainant received telephonic message and one Sitaram Soren, LAMPS worker told the husband of complainant that the Block Development Officer Shikaripara has told him to give Rs.2.00 lacs for opening of godown of LAMPS. It was further alleged that on 12.09.2011 the President of LAMPS, namely, Arbind Marandi told the husband of the complainant on telephone that the matter has been settled on consideration money of Rs.1.00 lacs and he told to give rupees one lac in lieu of rupees two lacs. It was further alleged that on 12.09.2011 the President of LAMPS, namely, Arbind Marandi told the husband of the complainant on telephone that the matter has been settled on consideration money of Rs.1.00 lacs and he told to give rupees one lac in lieu of rupees two lacs. It was also alleged that on receiving the said message, the husband of the complainant felt very uneasy and he suffered from severe pain whole night and in morning, he was admitted in Sadar Hospital, Deoghar, where he died on 13.09.2011. It was further alleged that the husband of the complainant died due to said threatening, as he was heartily weak. 5. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of opposite party no.2 was working as Cooperative Extension Officer, Shikaripara Block and was in-charge of four LAMPS. In the month of July, godown of LAMPS was sealed by the petitioner and subsequently it was opened on the assurance of the husband of the complainant that he will not repeat his mistake in future, as committed by him. He further submits that the petitioner was on leave from 30.08.2011 to 03.09.2011 on account of Eid festival and leave for the said period was sanctioned by the competent authority. He also submits that after proceeding on leave, Mukhia of Shikaripara Panchayat alongwith others filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in respect of irregularities committed in distribution of fertilizer and the said complaint was filed on 01.09.2011. He further submits that when the petitioner resume his duty, godown of LAMPS was opened on 10.09.2011 on persuasion in presence of Mukhia and other persons along with husband of opposite party no.2 and other employees of LAMPS. On 10.09.2011, the husband of opposite party no.2 had gone to Deoghar, stating that his wife is ill. He further submits that on 13.09.2011, the petitioner came to know that the husband of opposite party no.2 died in Sadar Hospital, Deoghar. He submits that later on the petitioner came to know about that incident. He further submits that the allegation of demanding Rs.2 Lakhs from the husband of opposite party no.2 was made before the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and the Deputy Commissioner constituted one man Enquiry Committee and on enquiry, report was submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, wherein, the petitioner was given clean-chit. He further submits that the allegation of demanding Rs.2 Lakhs from the husband of opposite party no.2 was made before the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and the Deputy Commissioner constituted one man Enquiry Committee and on enquiry, report was submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, wherein, the petitioner was given clean-chit. He submits that thereafter after lapse of three months, the complaint petition was filed and the learned court has taken cognizance. On this point, he relied upon the judgment passed in Deo Lakhan Paswan v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.; [ 2012 (1) JLJR 206 (SC)]. He further submits that two of the complaint witnesses were also examined by the said Enquiry Officer, where, they have supported the case of the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that entire criminal proceeding is malicious in nature and the same may kindly be quashed. 6. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has taken cognizance looking into the statement of the witnesses and has taken cognizance. 7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record including the complaint petition along with enquiry report and the statement of two witnesses named as witnesses in the complaint and order taking cognizance. It is an admitted fact that the husband of opposite party no.2 was posted as Cooperative Extension Officer. The petitioner went on leave from 30.08.2011 to 03.09.2011. On the complaint made by the opposite party no.2 before the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar and the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, the Sub-Divisional Officer was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and he submitted his report in which he has found that the allegation of demanding the money is not correct. In the said enquiry, two of the complaint witnesses have also been examined and they have not supported the case of the complainant. Their statement is also annexed with this petition. On the basis of that the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka vide letter dated 09.12.2011 informed the Registrar, Cooperative Society that the case against the petitioner was found to be false. It appears from the order taking cognizance that relying on the statement of Amin Marandi and Sitaram Soren, the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner. On the basis of that the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka vide letter dated 09.12.2011 informed the Registrar, Cooperative Society that the case against the petitioner was found to be false. It appears from the order taking cognizance that relying on the statement of Amin Marandi and Sitaram Soren, the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner. The statement of two witnesses are on the record and looking into the statement, it is crystal clear that they have not supported the case of opposite party no.2 that too on the fact that they were witnesses in the complaint petition itself. The learned court has noted that Bhagat Murmu denied the allegation and thereafter cognizance has been taken. It prima facie suggests that the order taking cognizance is mechanical in nature as two witnesses have not supported the case of the opposite party no.2 and order taking cognizance speaks that they have supported the case of the opposite party no.2. Further the alleged allegation was enquired by none other than the Sub-Divisional Officer on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, wherein, the petitioner was not found guilty. 8. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the order taking cognizance dated 16.09.2013 including the entire criminal proceedings in connection with PCR Case No.451 of 2011, pending in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka is quashed. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.