1.Judhajit Das 2.Ravindra Kumar Sinha @ Ravindra Sinha v. The State of Jharkhand and Another
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 569 of 2020 ---- 1.Judhajit Das 2.Ravindra Kumar Sinha @ Ravindra Sinha -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another ---- .... Petitioners .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P.No.2 :- :- :- --- Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate Md. Sajid Yunus, Advocate ---- 6/04.04.2024 Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gautam Rakesh, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Md. Sajid Yunus, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2. 2. In this petition the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 23.11.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.281 of 2017, pending in the
Legal Reasoning
court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Giridih. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the complaint case was filed initially which was sent by the learned court under section 156(3) Cr.P.C and pursuant to that Nagar P.S. Case No.272 of 2014 was registered. He further submits that police has investigated the matter and submitted final form whereby the petitioners have not been sent up for trial. He submits that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under section 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. on the protest petition filed by the O.P.No.2. 4. The protest petition has been filed alleging therein that ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited is a commercial organization which is engaged in the business of insurance and the accused persons of 1 [Cr.M.P. No. 569 of 2020] the said organization are responsible for the commission of the offence. It has been alleged that the complainant was appointed as Manager Business Partner on 22nd July, 2009 and after his appointment on the said post the complainant performed his duty to the satisfaction of the Management and also helped in growth of business pursuant to which the company earned profit. It has been alleged by the complainant that from 22.07.2009 to August, 2010 he was attached with the company but, during the said period the complainant was under treatment for 3 months from 31st October, 2009 to January, 2010 and during the said period he continued to help his business team and thereafter after his treatment he joined the company on 1st February, 2010 and received his salary in March 2010 amounting to Rs.77,725/- for the period from 31st October, 2009 to 31st January, 2010. The complainant further alleges that upon demanding salary for the month of February and March, 2010 for which the accused persons Mr. Ravindra Sinha and Mr. Victor Kandula assured that the complainant will be paid salary for the period from February, 2010 to April, 2010 and thereafter it has been alleged that in April, 2010 when the complainant demanded salary for the month of February, 2010 to March, 2010 amounting to Rs.80,000/- then the accused persons threatened him to terminate from his service and demanded Rs.50,000/- as gratification, failing which, he will be terminated from service and subsequently, when the complainant did not pay the said gratification then on 2nd July, 2010 the complainant was terminated from service and also grabbed his salary amounting to Rs.80,000/- an in this manner the complainant was cheated. It has been also alleged by the complainant that the medical attendance register and the valuable documents related to the progress report which was kept with the company was destroyed 2 [Cr.M.P. No. 569 of 2020] by the accused persons so that the complainant may not claim any amount in future and despite continuous correspondences with the company the amount was not released an finally on 27.05.2010 the accused person Mr. Ravindra Sinha threatened the complainant on his mobile and in this manner the accused persons in conspiracy have cheated the complainant by misappropriating a sum of Rs.80,000/- which was his salary for the period February, 2010 to April, 2010 and also destroyed the valuable documents and finally it has been stated the FIR being Nagar P.S. Case No.272 of 2014 registered on the basis of Complaint Case No.1006 of 2014 has not been properly investigated for which the protest petition has been filed. 5. Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is H.R. Head of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company and he is posted at Mumbai and petitioner no.2 is Vice President of the said company posted at Patna. He further submits that the said case was filed at Giridih. He further submits that on the protest petition, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance. He submits that the O.P.No.2 was appointed as Manager Business Partner Grade-II on 22.07.2009 at Giridih and the nature of the work of complainant was managerial. He was negligent in performing his duties and also did not keep his management informed about his whereabouts during official hours. He was absent from work on 14.06.2010 without leave and without any intimation for the same a show cause was issued to the O.P.No.2 on 22.6.2010 and second show cause was issued on 29.06.2010 for his gross indiscipline for not reporting to his work. The O.P.No.2 replied to the notice whereby he has informed that on medical ground he was not going to office and only one O.P.D paper dated 3 [Cr.M.P. No. 569 of 2020] 12.01.2010 was produced before the Manager. The O.P.No.2 remained absent with effect from 31.10.2009 to January, 2010 and in this background, the O.P.No.2 was terminated with effect from 21.09.2010. By way of referring to Annexure-6 of the petition he submits that the petitioner has also raised the industrial dispute. However, the said industrial dispute was not referred to any competent Labour Court as the O.P.No.2 was working on managerial capacity, and he is not coming under the meaning of workmen. By way of referring the contents of the complaint petition, he submits that for recovery of the arrears of pay the complaint case has been filed and bald allegation is made of demanding illegal gratification. In this background, he submits that maliciously the said averment has been made and no case under section 506 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners who are the responsible officer of the said company. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the final form has been submitted, however, the learned court on the protest petition has been pleased to take cognizance. 7. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that apart from that, there are allegations of demanding illegal gratification and in view of that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance under section 506 and 34 IPC and the allegations are also there of destroying the medical certificate and extending threat by force. On this ground, he submits that this Court sitting under section 482 Cr.P.C may not quash the entire criminal proceeding and that can only be the subject matter of trial. 8. The Court has gone through the contents of the protest cum complaint petition and finds that four officers of the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited have been made accused. In the complaint 4 [Cr.M.P. No. 569 of 2020] petition, it is admitted that the O.P.No.2 was working with the said company. The O.P.No.2 has met with an accident and he has not attended the office that is also disclosed in the said protest cum complaint petition. Further the allegation was investigated by the police and final form was submitted whereby the petitioners have not been sent up for trial. However, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance on the protest petition. The Court finds that the said complaint petition is not on affidavit and the statement of the enquiry witnesses have been brought on record. The enquiry witnesses no.1 has not stated anything which can be an ingredient of section 506 IPC and he has only stated that O.P.No.2 has met with an accident and so far enquiry witness no.2 is concerned, he has also stated that certain demand was made in presence of the witness no.2 whereas Ravindra Kumar Sinha, who is the petitioner no.2, is the Vice President, posted at Patna and the allegations are made of said demand at Giridih and apart from that, there is nothing on the record to suggest that any ingredient of section 506 IPC against the petitioners are made out. Further the O.P.No.2 has moved before the Assistant Labour Commissioner by way of raising industrial dispute, however, considering that the O.P.No.2 was working on managerial capacity and he was not coming withing the meaning of workmen, industrial dispute was not referred to Assistant Labour Commissioner and that order was passed on 26.08.2011, whereas the FIR was registered on 09.08.2014, that is, after three years and final form has been submitted on 27.08.2015 and the protest petition was filed on 13.01.2017. In this background, it appears that maliciously the present case has been filed against the petitioners, who happened to be the higher officials of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited and the sole purpose of filing the said complaint petition 5 [Cr.M.P. No. 569 of 2020] appears to be recovery of arrears of salary. The Court has gone through the contents of the order taking cognizance and finds that what are the prima facie materials against the petitioners to take cognizance on the protest petition is not disclosed. There is no doubt that a detailed order is not required for taking cognizance, however, in such fact, whereby final from is there in favour of the petitioners, at least prima facie case is required to be reflected in the order taking cognizance which is lacking in the case in hand. If such type of allegation is brought before the High Court, the High Court is having more responsibility as if malicious case is being filed every care is being taken to draft the complaint or F.I.R in such way so that the ingredient of alleged sections may be made out, and if such a situation is there, the Court is required to read the things in between the lines. In this background, it is crystal clear case of malicious prosecution by a terminated employee of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited is filed. The petitioner no.1 was posted as H.R. Head of the said company whereas the petitioner no.2 was Vide President of the said company and were posted at Mumbai and Patna respectively and the case was registered at Giridih. 9. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 23.11.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.281 of 2017, pending in the court of leraned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Giridih, are quashed. 10. 11.
Decision
This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly. SI/, A.F.R. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 6 [Cr.M.P. No. 569 of 2020]