Purnendu Kumar Verma @ Purnendu Verma v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sri Yamuna Mistry
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 52 of 2007 Purnendu Kumar Verma @ Purnendu Verma ... Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sri Yamuna Mistry ... ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manoj Tandon : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, J.C. to G.P.-II ........ 7/28.06.2013 This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.07.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 954 of 1998, corresponding to B.S. City P.S. Case No. 315 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, he took cognizance of the offences under Sections 467/468/471/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner. Petitioner further pray for quashing of the order dated 13.06.2006 passed by Sri B.K. Lal, J.M. 1st Class, Bokaro, whereby and whereunder, he declared that petitioner is absconder and accordingly issued permanent warrant against petitioner. Sri Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no offence under Sections 467/468/471/420/120-B made out against petitioner. He submits that petitioner is headmaster of Government Basic School, Telua at Betia. It is further submitted that son of informant Raj Kishore Kumar and two others namely Vyas Kumar and Vidya Sagar Singh gave him a letter issued by Regional Deputy Director, Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur for joining as teacher in Govt. Basic School Domath, West Champaran. It is submitted that petitioner send aforesaid letter to Regional Deputy Director, Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur for verification and later on send another letter for taking action against aforesaid Raj Kishore Kumar, Vyas Kumar and Vidya Sagar Singh, because they were absent from school without any notice. Accordingly, it is submitted that no role played by petitioner in creation of forged letter of appointment. It is submitted that petitioner innocently acted upon the said letter. Accordingly, it is prayed that no offence made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that police after investigation, submitted final form in favour of petitioner, but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bokaro took cognizance against petitioner without any material. Hence order taking cognizance cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that order dated 13.06.2006 is illegal, because, after submission of charge-sheet, no summons served upon petitioner. Accordingly, order dated 13.06.2006 is also liable to be quashed. On the other hand Sri R.P. Singh, learned Junior Counsel to G.P.-II submits that in the first information report, as well as three witnesses namely Raj Kishore Kumar, Vyas Kumar and Vidya Sagar Singh in their statements before the I.O. had stated that the petitioner gave them alleged letter of appointment. There is no evidence to show that the alleged appointment letter was handed over to the petitioner by Raj Kishore Kumar, Vyas Kumar and Vidya Sagar Singh. Accordingly he submits that there is evidence to show that petitioner along with other co-accused hatched conspiracy and cheated informant his son and two others and prepared forged document for the said purpose. Accordingly, Sri Singh submits that offences under Sections 467/468/471/420/120-B are made out against petitioner. However, Sri Singh fairly stated that after submission of charge- sheet, no summons served upon petitioner, as service report of the same has not been attached with the record of the court below. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of case. It is alleged that co-accused Suresh Sharma asked informant that if he will spent Rs. 50,000/-, then his son Raj Kishore Kumar will be appointed as teacher. It is alleged that informant agreed and said that he will pay aforesaid amount after the joining of his son as teacher. Thereafter co-accused Suresh Sharma took informant's son to another co-accused namely Ram Kumar Harijan, who took informant's son and others to Dy. S.P. of C.I.D. at Patna. Thereafter all went to Betia and met with the petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner get them medically examined after taking Rs. 200/- from each candidate. Thereafter petitioner sent back informant's son and two others. It is further alleged that after some time, said Ram Kumar came to the house of informant and asked him to send his son for joining in the school. Thereafter informant's son Raj Kishore Kumar and two others namely Vyas Kumar and Vidya Sagar Singh went to Betia and met with petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner gave them a letter and asked them to hand over the same to Mahendra Singh, Incharge headmaster, who will allow them to join as teacher in Government School Domath, Betiah, West Champaran. However, Mahendra Singh did not allow them to join and asked them to bring joining letter. It is further alleged that Raj Kishore Kumar, Vyas Kumar and Vidya Sagar Singh again went to the place of petitioner and narrated him above facts, then petitioner gave them appointment letter alleged to have been issued by Regional Deputy Director, Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. It is alleged that on the basis of said letter, aforesaid three persons were allowed to join in Govt. Basic School Domath, West Champaran. After two months they again met with petitioner as they were not getting their salary. Then the petitioner asked them to pay Rs. 15,000/- otherwise they will get their salary. Thereafter, aforesaid three persons made inquiry in the office of Regional Deputy Director, Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur and came to know that said letter of appointment is forged. Accordingly, present case filed. From perusal of statement of informant and statements of Raj Kishore Kumar, Vyas Kumar and Vidya Sagar Singh, I find that letter of appointment was given to them by the petitioner. It is alleged that said letter of appointment is forged. There is nothing in the entire case diary to show that son of informant and two others namely Vyas Kumar and Vidya Sagar Singh handed over said letter to petitioner for the purpose of their joining. Thus, I find no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he innocently acted upon the said letter, rather story narrated in the first information report and statements of aforesaid three witnesses prima-facie show that petitioner in connivance with other co-accused had issued said letter with a view to cheat informant and other persons. Thus, in my view, prima-facie offences under Sections 467/468/471/420 read with Section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code are made out. Thus, I find no illegality in the order dated 17.07.2000, by which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of aforesaid offences against the petitioner. So far order dated 13.06.2006 is concerned, admittedly, same was passed against petitioner without service of summons after submission of charge-sheet. Under the said circumstance, said order is illegal, thus, cannot be sustained. In view of the discussions made above, this writ application is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 13.06.2006 is hereby quashed. Petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below within one month from today. If petitioner surrender in the court below within that time, court below is directed to enlarge petitioner on bail because he has already been granted anticipatory bail by Annexure-5. This writ application so far it related to impugned order dated 17.07.2000 is concerned, same is hereby dismissed. The finding given in this order will not prejudice petitioner in future. Binit (Prashant Kumar, J.)