An applicant challenged the dismissal of her complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arguing that officials committed a criminal conspiracy by unfairly selecting a candidate. The single judge held the complaint lacked merit and dismissed the petition.
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; no relief granted to the applicant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
'^S-Si^^^e^-^f; ?? • ^K^^S^^^
SingleBench
INTHEHON'BLEmGHCOURTOFCHHATTlSGARHATBILASPURC.G.
Cr.M.P.No.'+^ /II
APPLICANT
Smt. Hiramani
W/o Amarjit
PM. »B..........^-y-:j7"-^ pfesOTSstfbySt!riR"^-;.^¥",::x.:.^F-1.'
R/o Gram Mahora,
P.S. Patna, Tah. Baikunthpur Distt. Koriya, C.G.
'i^
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANTS
Smt. Nisha Mishra Ex officio Distt. Woman & Child Development Officer, Baikunthpur,Distt.Koriya, C.G.
Smt. Prabha Lakda Project Officer, Woman & ChildDevelopmentProjecf, Baikunthpur, Distt- Koriya
C.G.
Smt. Sumitra Jaiswal
W/o Mitfhulal Jaiswal
Anganbadiworker- Anganbadi Center Navapara, VillageMahora, P.S.Patna, Distt.
Koriya, C.G.
APPLIGATIQN U^ fi2^^CRIMINAL PROCEDURE GOfiE
-7£("^Tqi^T, •^•Wg', f^iray ^'r-.^.tr^'^-T-^/i]'T'
W (•q?^'^'';)
| sa^T'wfei^ wn <s<A;nwiR; |
^RnwHftssii^n ''' EOTfW^f•qpraf^fS<a ?s'II?i~< ^s a'fiFi sn^i |
|---|---|
| SBTBonbleSfiiTManinBraMoliail 04-11.2011 Shri Raj Kumar Gupta along ^ith Smt, Krishna Gupta, counsel for Shrivastava, J. |
|
| the applicant. Heard. |
|
| This petition under Section 4 | |
| -7 | not eligible for being appointed application was considered and she' and given appointment, whereas candidate. It is further submitted th^t in view of the allegations against the respondents No.1 to 4, no pr Cr.P.C. is available, as what has be^n done, is a criminal act hatched in a conspiracy, whereby the docijments attached along with the application of the petitioner, were r |
mtran ^*t swrosr, ir'a'iRiiig—ys/140—2/2011—l,so,ooo.
«,,-^^^
^
;F£T^ffin^R, 'sTTi^r®,tsf^irey
'w^)
s(
ai^qg'R;^^ -^ ^rafenh 'aF??ii •S? feca' •rf^CTii:
wns^'irwiite i; s^i sii^i
From the orders passed by th^ Couri: below, it is revealed that the
respondents No.1 to 4 were involf^ed in the process of selection of
Aanganbadi Worker in their capacityl as public servants. The respondent
No.5 was held to be most suitabl^ and she was given appointment,
against which, remedy of appeal has also been taken before the
competent authority. The complaint ^ based on the averment that in the
.'s*>Tl''?T .,..-.. ...... . . .,- .....'•siA ^
process pf se!.lectioh,.some.(locumetits, ' which were attached along with
SaWKi ""ffl.l'Kf WS'J 1
^•^•^'^£SV. . . the applicatifta forrg^sggg removed py the respondents No.1 to 4 under
» .a Grjcgi.nal conspu;aGy,fQi&xtend undu|e benefit to the respondent No.5.
The;t!eSpOriyeOtStN6.1 to 5j dealt with the application of the
:&.{• petitioner being invb ed'i8 the pifocess of selection in their official
capadty and loC 6n^rSa§dffibrthe ol|her, the respondent No.5 was found
more suitable leading to her appoihtment and the petitioner was not
e;:sp • »"selected, and therefore, the responc|ents No.1 to 4 are alleged to have
^*P ^^iO;^..^,"- -;:•••-
cbmmitEedoffences, while acting in c|ischarge oftheir official duties.
In that view of the matter, s^nction would be necessary before
cognizance could be taken. The viet/ taken by the learned Court below
does not appear to be perverse or so outrageous as to warrant
(;-
Iriterf^rehce bythiscourK' ";::"
,^ Accoi-dii^Jy.^ffle peffiiSirbeinj) devoid of merit and is accordingly
•r"" .. „..;-.... *>?;,; 3-a-'fe®'i6'i
dismissed, !-
"»s'ay!. Sd/-
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Judge
f"; .W^-j.p-. i
!ire-«tii^*igsmeBT,(wftina—ys/140—2/2011—1,50,000.
b~=5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the refusal of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of complaints against public servants acting in their official capacity.
Whether the inconsistent selection of candidates indicates a criminal conspiracy warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Hiramani
Smt. Nisha Mishra
Smt. Prabha Lakda
Smt. Elijabeth Toppo
V.K. Rathaur
Smt. Sumitra Jaiswal
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
