Amitabh Shrivastava v. State of Uttaranchal

Shrivastava has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No.1823 of 2004, Ruchi Kshetri vs. Amitabh Shrivastava, relating to offences punishable under section 354, and 506, I.P.C., pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

#2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one turned up on behalf of the respondent no.2, at the time of final hearing.

#3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Ruchi Kshetri (complainant) filed a criminal complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, which was registered as criminal complaint case no. 655 of 2005, in which she alleged that she was a teacher in BHATKHANDE HINDUSTANI SANGEET MAHAVIDHYALYA. She had pleaded that earlier she was posted in Pauri but considering her family circumstances, she was attached at Dehradun. On 02.04.2004, according to her, she asked to meet the respondent -3- Amitabh Shrivastava, Director of Department of Culture. She went to meet him. She has alleged that the present petitioner (accused) started appreciating her beauty and thereafter molested her. The complainant (present respondent no.2) in her criminal complaint further alleged that she ran out of the office of the petitioner, and made attempts to make complaint to the Chief Minister but to no avail. Ultimately, she filed the present criminal complaint on 20.04.2004. The criminal complaint appears to have been transferred to the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. The Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, after recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C., and that of witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the petitioner Amitabh Shrivastava, vide his order dated

08.02.2005, to face the trial in respect of offences punishable under section 354, and 506 I.P.C. Hence this petition is by the accused, challenging the summoning order and the proceedings of the criminal complaint case.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the -4- criminal complaint are not only false but it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the petitioner in the criminal proceedings. Attention of this Court is drawn to report dated 07.05.2004 (copy Annexure- 9 to the petition) submitted by RAJYA MAHILA AYOG, Dehradun. Said document shows that on the allegations made by the respondent no.2 Ruchi Kshetri, the matter was examined by the RAJYA MAHILA AYOG who met the concerned parties. After hearing both the parties, RAJYA MAHILA AYOG (State Women's Commission) observed that respondent no. 2 Ruchi Kshetri (complainant) was infact appointed on 16.02.2000, on adhoc basis in BHATKHANDE HINDUSTANI SANGEET MAHAVIDHYALYA, Pauri. In October, 2002, on her request she was attached at Dehradun, the place to which she belongs. However, the work started suffering at Pauri, and representations were made by the students and guardians, on which the petitioner who was Director of the Department, terminated the attachment of respondent no.2 at Dehradun, and directed her to join her duties at Pauri. The said order was passed on 01.04.2004. The State Women Commission -5- further observed that there is no evidence that complainant was called on 02.04.2004, to meet the Director of Cultural Department (the present petitioner) rather, she appears to have made attempt to meet the Chief Minister on 05.04.2004, to cancel the termination of her attachment from Dehardun, but she was not obliged. The State Women's Commission has further observed that she did not made any complaint from 02.04.2004 to 06.04.2004, regarding the incident. It is only on

07.04.2004, she made complaint to the women commission to pressurize the petitioner to cancel her termination of attachment . With these reasons the said women commission found the complaint false.

#5. Perusal of the record further shows that the respondent no.2 Ruchi Kshetri (complainant) filed a writ petition no. 439(s/s) of 2004, before this Court challenging her termination of attachment from Dehradun. In said writ petition also she made certain allegations against the Director, Directorate of Cultural Department (the post held by the petitioner). It appears that under directions of this Court, an enquiry was held by Shri N.N. -6- Prasad, Secretary, Department of Culture, Government of Uttarkhand. The report dated

17.06.2004, (copy Annexure-10 to this petition) submitted by said authority also shows the allegations made by the respondent no.2 (complainant) were motivated and false. It was further found that, infact, as per the record of the Directorate, the order of termination of attachment was actually issued from the office, only on

02.04.2004, and there was no reason on the part of the petitioner to call the complainant to his office and molest her. Said report of Secretary , Government of Uttarakhand, was accepted by this Court in writ petition no. 439 (s/s) of 2004, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.06.2004. Copy of said order is enclosed as annexure-11 to this petition. In said order dated 22.06.2004, this Court clearly observed that “ No such misconduct was committed by the Director”. Copy of order dated

04.08.2004, passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. D35 of 2004, (copy Annexure-12 to the present petition) further shows that Ruchi Kshetri (present respondent no.2/complainant) filed special appeal against the order dated 22.06.2004, passed by this Court but the same was disposed of as withdrawn. -7-

#6. In the above circumstances, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner Amitabh Shrivastava, appear to be an abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant/respondent no.2 Ruchi Kshetri.

#7. Therefore, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is allowed. The summoning order dated

08.02.2005, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, against the petitioner Amitabh Shrivastava, in criminal complaint case no. 1823 of 2004, is hereby quashed. The proceedings of said criminal complaint case are hereby quashed. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned. (Prafulla C. Pant, J) Dt. 19.08.2010 Parul