Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 418 (UTT)

Jaspal Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-06-14

RAKESH THAPLIYAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. By the instant C-482 application, applicant is challenging the order dated 19.12.2020 passed by the 1st Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No. 4085 of 2019 (Jaspal Singh Rana Vs. Vinod Raturi and others) as well as order dated 11.07.2023 passed by 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2021. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that applicant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 2006 in Government Primary School, Chiliyal Village Block Bhilangana, District Tehri Garhwal, where he was posted till 2010. During this period, applicant got acquainted with the residents of the village and subsequently, respondent no. 3 and 19 had asked for some financial help from the present applicant and the applicant had provided the financial help on the assurance that they will return the money but after receiving the money, they refused to return the amount, so the applicant was constrained to file a case in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, New Tehri and when notices were issued to the respondents no. 3 and 19 had made a settlement through the court by returning the borrowed money, after which, the applicant with the permission of the court withdrew the case. After withdrawal of the case, respondents no. 3 and 19 started harassing the applicant and conspired against him in collusion with other respondents and then they hatched a conspiracy, under which a false and forged complaint was made by the respondents, which was sent to the District Magistrate with an intention to tarnish the reputation of the applicant and causing harm to him. In the said complaint, derogatory language and words were used by the respondents in order to tarnish the reputation of the applicant. 3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that respondents are holding various responsible posts in Block Bhilangana, District – Tehri Garhwal, they misused their position and made false complaint against the applicant to the higher authorities. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on the basis of such complaint, the District Magistrate ordered for inquiry against the applicant and due to influence and pressure of the respondents, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the applicant, he was transferred from durgam to Ati durgam place on administrative ground. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on the basis of such complaint, the District Magistrate ordered for inquiry against the applicant and due to influence and pressure of the respondents, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the applicant, he was transferred from durgam to Ati durgam place on administrative ground. Thereafter, the applicant moved a complaint on 07.09.2018 to the police authorities and to the District Magistrate but no action was taken. 4. It is further submitted by the applicant that on the basis of false and fabricated complaint, the applicant was transferred from durgam to Ati durgam area, on administrative ground, without providing any opportunity of hearing. Subsequently, petitioner approached this Court by way of filing WPSS No. 501 of 2018, which was disposed of by this Court on 22.03.2018 with certain directions. In compliance to the direction passed by this Court whereby respondents were directed to decide the representation, the Regional Addl. Director of Secondary Education, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri Garhwal appointed District Education Officer Shri Shiv Prasad Semwal, as an Inquiry Officer and directed him to provide inquiry report within 10 days and subsequently, representation was decided by order dated 22.09.2018. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Chief Education Officer sent the alleged inquiry report dated 07.09.2018 to the Regional Addl. Director Intermediate Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri and the Regional Addl. Director Intermediate Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri without considering the real facts merely on the basis of inquiry report of the Chief Education Officer decided applicant’s representation. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, applicant preferred another writ petition being WPSS No. 3661 of 2018 challenging the order dated 22.09.2018 raising various allegations against the authorities and thereafter, this Court by order dated 12.10.2018 disposed of the writ petition by directing the Director, Secondary Education, Uttarakhand, Nanurkhera to take final decision on the pending representation of the petitioner dated 08.10.2018 by reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a week. The Director, Secondary Education, Dehradun, by order dated 27.11.2018 in utter disregard to the direction issued by this Court, upheld the order dated 22.09.2018 passed by Regional Addl. Director Intermediate Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri. It is submitted that the basis of upholding the above order dated 22.09.2018 was arbitrary and misleading and incorrect finding has been recorded in the report dated 05.11.2018 of Regional Addl. Director Intermediate Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri. It is submitted that the basis of upholding the above order dated 22.09.2018 was arbitrary and misleading and incorrect finding has been recorded in the report dated 05.11.2018 of Regional Addl. Director Intermediate Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri. Copy of the order dated 29.11.2018 is enclosed as Annexure No. 7 to the application. Thereafter, applicant sent various letters to the Hon’ble Education Minister as well as Regional Addl. Director, Intermediate Pauri Region, mentioning all the facts with all relevant proofs but no action has been taken. In the month of December, 2019, applicant appeared before the Regional Addl. Director, Intermediate, Pauri Region and requested him to consider his representation with all factual position in its letter and spirit. When the applicant went to the office of Director, Education, to give his explanation and submit his letter, then the staff of the Director of Secondary Education, used sarcastic words with the applicant and due to aforesaid defamatory words of the respondents against the applicant, a complaint was filed by the applicant before the 1st Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, however, learned Magistrate vide order dated 19.12.2020 dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by holding that whatever be the complaint has been given to the District Magistrate against the applicant, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear it. Aggrieved by the said order dated 19.12.2020, applicant preferred a revision bearing Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2021 before the District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, which was subsequently, transferred to the court of 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge for its disposal and thereafter, the revision was dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Revisional Court without appreciating the facts and legal position, dismissed the revision. He further submits that the trial court committed grave error by holding that whatever be the complaint letter has been given to the District Magistrate against the applicant, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear it while the alleged letters signed by the accused circulated and communicated everywhere including the Directorate of Secondary Education, Dehradun and on the basis of above act the image of the applicant has been tarnished. It is further submitted that the trial court and the Revisional Court without considering the material facts and legal position, in a mechanical and stereotype manner, rejected the complaint and revision of the applicant, therefore, impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be set aside. 6. He further submits that apart from this, the revisional court did not give the correct interpretation of case law on defamation as passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subramaniam Swamy Vs. Prabhkar S. Pai and P. Lankesh and another Vs. H. Shivappa and another. He further submits that the Revisional Court committed grave error of law by rejecting the revision on the ground that provisions of Section 179 Cr.P.C. does not apply in the case of the applicant. 7. After taking into consideration the documents available on record, it appears that the main grievance of the present applicant was against his transfer from one place to another on administrative ground and that was the reason, he approached to this Court and this Court directed the Director to take a final decision on the representation of the applicant. Subsequently, the Director by order dated 29.11.2018 passed a detailed order, which is enclosed as Annexure No. 7 to the application. 8. I have perused the same and it appears that the Director while rejecting the representation of the applicant drew a conclusion about the conduct of this applicant on the basis of inquiry report submitted by the Chief Education Officer, Tehri Garhwal and came to the conclusion that present applicant was rightly transferred on administrative ground. It appears that present applicant preferred the complaint only because of the reason that he was transferred from one place to another and that is the reason, complaint of the applicant was rejected by the 1st Addl. CJM, Dehradun after taking into consideration all these aspects. 9. This Court has also perused the orders, under challenge and does not find any error on the face of it. This Court is of the view that complaint of the present applicant was rightly rejected. Furthermore, against the order of rejection passed by 1st Addl. CJM, Dehradun after taking into consideration all these aspects. 9. This Court has also perused the orders, under challenge and does not find any error on the face of it. This Court is of the view that complaint of the present applicant was rightly rejected. Furthermore, against the order of rejection passed by 1st Addl. CJM, Dehradun present applicant also preferred a Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2021 impleading more than 20 persons in the revision and the Revisional Court also examined all these aspects and observed that present applicant gave some cash to the local residents and to recover the same, the complaint was filed. The revisional court has also examined the impact of Section 179 Cr.P.C.. This Court also perused and examined the order passed by revisional court dated 11.07.2023 dismissing the revision and does not find any illegality. 10. Consequently, present C 482 application is dismissed being devoid of merits.