Gopal Dash Nigam .... .... … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Satish Kumar
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 902 of 2015 ------ Gopal Dash Nigam .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Satish Kumar .... WITH Cr.M.P. No. 1828 of 2016 .... .... Opp. Parties Dipak Kumar Bhattacharya @ Dipak Bhattacharya .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance .... 2. Satish Kumar .... WITH Cr.M.P. No. 1841 of 2016 .... Opp. Parties Karmdeo Ram .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance .... 2. Satish Kumar .... .... Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
After having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, the instant case appears to have the hallmark of false and motivated complaint being filed, on being suspended and departmental proceeding having been initiated by arraying the senior officials of BCCL on vague and omnibus charges. The complainant was suspended vide order dated 15.06.2011 and he filed the complaint on 27.06.2011 imputing allegations that illegal gratification was demanded for regularization of his service. On the said date the petitioner had been suspended therefore the question of regularization of his service did not arise. After investigation, the complaint was found not true and final form has been submitted. In the protest petition, only the complainant has been examined and even assuming the averments to be true, this Court is of the view that no prima facie case will be made out and its continuation will be abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of Special Case No.01 of 2011 including the order dated 09.01.2015 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IX cum Special Judge, Vigilance, Dhanbad, is set aside and quashed. These criminal miscellaneous petitions stand allowed. I.As. if any, is
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Special P.P. : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate ------ Order No.23 Dated : 04.07.2023 Instant petitions have been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding of Special Case No.01 of 2011 including the order dated 09.01.2015 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IX cum Special Judge, Vigilance, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder prima face case has been found to be made out under Sections 150, 406, 468, 120B of the I.P.C. and also under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called PC Act). 2. The complainant-Satish Kumar was posted as Underground Mazdoor at Madhuband Colliery and was later on shifted to Phularitand Colliery as Underground Mazdoor. The complaint was filed by him before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad being C.P. Case No.1212 of 2011 on 27.06.2011 against P.E. Kachhap, Soumen Chatterjeje, B.K. Sahu, who were senior officials of BCCL and others including these petitioners. 3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 15.06.2011, he was suspended without concrete reasons regarding which he submitted his 2 explanation on 23.06.2011. The F.I.R. was lodged on 18.06.2011 at Kharkharee out post within the jurisdiction of Madhuban Police Station, Dhanbad. The main allegation levelled by the complainant is that accused no.5-Dipak Kumar Bhattacharya demanded illegal gratification of Rs.35,000/- for forwarding the note sheet for his regularization on the post of Cashier and it is alleged against the petitioner- Gopal Dash Nigam (accused no.4) and other accused persons that they did not regularize the complainant into service by manipulating his attendance register. The complaint was forwarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. After investigation, the case was found to be not true and final form was submitted. 4. After submission of final form, a protest petition was filed by the complainant and on the basis of protest petition, cognizance has been taken and the process and summons issued against this petitioner. Aggrieved by this, present petition has been filed. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that there is no allegation of making any illegal demand of gratification is directed only against Deepak Kumar Bhatacharya and not against the other petitioners. Instead of filing a complaint with the CBI, which is competent to investigate such offence a private complaint was filed. Cognizance has been taken without any sanction for prosecution on a protest-cum-complaint petition. 6. The present case is glaring instance of abuse of process of Court to wreak vendetta because the complainant has been suspended and a departmental proceeding was initiated by order dated 15.06.2011. The complainant was suspended in contemplation of departmental proceeding which was initiated against him vide order dated 15.06.2011 on the charge that he had illegally taken the keys of Account/Cash Section and he had also removed valuable documents. After departmental proceeding was initiated, present complaint has been filed before the Court below. In the departmental proceeding, the complainant was indicted of the charges and he was dismissed from service on 05.06.2012. 7. The police after investigation, found the case not true and submitted final form. In the instant petition, as submitted earlier, there is no allegation of receiving any illegal gratification against these petitioners so offence under Section 7 of PC Act will not be made out. It is also submitted that there is vague and general allegation of forgery of the attendance roll, but no specific 3 reference has been made nor any document has been produced to make out the offence of forgery. It is submitted that there is no mention what had been entrusted to the petitioners. Despite serious and glaring lacuna in the protest petition, it has been accepted and process has been issued. 8. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 submitted that it is a definite case of the complainant that in order to deny the regularization of service, the attendance register was manipulated and the attendance part was destroyed and other document in support of the complainant was also misappropriated by these petitioners. 9.
Decision
also disposed of. Anit (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)