Allowed

Punam Singh v. State And Anr.

Jharkhand HC13 Sept 2012Cr.Misc./9924770/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed three criminal miscellaneous applications and quashed the entire criminal proceedings, including orders taking cognizance under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC, finding the complaint was filed maliciously due to a personal grudge.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding of P.C.R. Case No. 30 of 1999, including orders taking cognizance dated 5.8.2000 and 9.12.2002, is hereby quashed.

Punam Singh Vs State And Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24770 of 2000(P) with Criminal Miscellaneous No.25955 of2000 (P) with Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.192 of 2003

¶2

------

¶3

In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶4

Punam Singh.................................Petitioner (Cr.Misc.No.24770 of 2000(P) Kabindra Kumar Singh................ Petitioner (Cr.Misc.No.25955 of 2000 (P) Kavindra Kumar Singh ..................Petitioner (Cr.M.P. No.192 of 2003)

¶5

V E R S U S

¶6

State of Jharkhand and another .... ............................. Opposite Parties

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioners : Mr.K.P.Deo (in Cr.Misc.No.25955 of 2000 and Cr.M.P.No.192 of 2003)

¶9

For the State : Mr.Shashank Shekhar Prasad, A.P.P

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD

¶12

By Court : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶13

The complainant-opposite party no.2 was posted as teacher at primary school, Manjhiyana in Deoghar Anchal. Prior to that, he was posted at primary school, Keerwa in Sarwan Anchal. When the complainant joined in the primary school, Manjhiyana, the Principal of that school sent the complainant before the Headmaster of Badhani Middle School with the statement of absentee for payment of salary as the drawing and disbursing officer of the complainant was the Headmaster of Badhani Middle School. For that purpose, he had gone to Badhani Middle School on 7.9.1980. On which date, Poonam Singh, District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar made inspection of the primary school, Manjhiyana and found the complainant absent from duty. Therefore, the petitioner, Poonam Singh asked for explanation from the complainant.

¶14

Pursuant to that, the complainant submitted his explanation to the petitioner, Poonam Singh explaining the circumstance under which he was found absent on the date of inspection. However, the explanation submitted by the complainant was not found satisfactory and hence, he was put under suspension on 11.1.1999.

¶15

Further case of the complainant is that when the complainant came to

¶16

know that he was put under suspension, he along with his brother-in-law, Kamdeo Das came to the office of the petitioner, Poonam Singh and asked for the reason as to why he has been suspended. Upon it, one Kavindra Kumar Singh (petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.192 of 2003) asked for Rs.500/- for getting the order of suspension revoked. But Kamdeo Das refused to make any payment. That led to altercation in between the Kavindra Kumar Singh and Kamdeo Das. During that course, Kavindra Kumar Singh slapped on his cheek. On such allegation, FIR was lodged on 26.1.1999 which was registered as Deoghar P.S. Case no.17 of 1999 under Sections 341, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶17

Before lodgment of the FIR, the complainant, Dindayal Das also lodged a complaint case which was registered as P.C.R. Case no.30 of 1999 on 24.1.1999 before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar wherein same statement has been made with respect to his absence from the duty on the date of inspection. However, allegation made in the complaint is somewhat different from the allegation which was made in the FIR as in the complaint, it has been alleged that when the complainant came to the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar and asked from her as to why she has put him under suspension, she asked for Rs.10,000/- for revoking the order of suspension. When the complainant refused to pay the said amount, Poonam Singh, District Superintendent of Education became furious and caught hold of the collar of the complainant and assaulted the complainant with fists and slaps. At that point of time, the petitioner Kavindra Kumar Singh also joined who also assaulted the complainant mercilessly and took away the money from the pocket of the complainant and also snatched wrist watch.

¶18

It has also been alleged that the complainant was insulted and humiliated as the complainant belongs to Schedule Caste community. On the said complaint, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code was taken. Before the cognizance was taken in the compliant case, the petitioner, Kavindra Kumar Singh and Poonam Singh filed a writ application before the Patna High Court, vide Cr.W.J.C No.99 of 1999 whereby entire criminal proceeding of Deoghar P.S case no.17 of 1999 and also the

¶19

complaint case were sought tobe quashed. However, subsequently prayer was confined to the extent of quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Deoghar P.S case no.17 of 1999. That application was allowed, vide order dated 25.6.1999. Subsequent to that, when cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against this petitioner and Poonam Singh in P.C.R. Case no.30 of 1999 on 5.8.2000, the petitioner, Kabindra Kumar Singh preferred Cr.Misc.No.25955 of 2000(P) and the petitioner, Poonam Singh preferred Cr.Misc.No.24770 of 2000(P) before the Patna High Court. Both the matters remained pending. However after bifurcation of the State, those two cases were transferred to this Court but before those cases were transferred to this Court, the petitioner Kabindra Kumar Singh preferred Cr.M.P.No.192 of 2003 before this Court challenging the order under which cognizance of the offence was taken in the complaint case no.30 of 1999. Similarly, Poonam Singh also preferred W.P.(C) No.90 of 2003 before this Court.

¶20

It further appears that when cognizance was taken only for the offences under Section 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, the complainant being aggrieved with that order preferred Criminal Revision before the court of Sessions Judge, Deoghar, who transferred the case to the court of 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge. The 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge disposed of that application directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar to take cognizance of the offence under the relevant provision of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶21

Pursuant to that order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar passed an order on 9.12.2002 whereby cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(viii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was taken against this petitioner and Poonam Singh.

¶22

That order was challenged, vide I.A.No.170 of 2003 in Cr.M.P.no.192 of 2003. But till date, no order has been passed on the interlocutory application. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the prayer made in the interlocutory application is hereby allowed and that interlocutory application shall form part of the main application.

¶23

Meanwhile, it was informed to me that W.P (Cr.) No.90 of 2003 was taken up by a Bench of this Court and that application was allowed, vide order dated 3.5.2012 whereby the order taking cognizance was quashed.

¶24

Under the aforesaid circumstances, all the three applications, i.e.Cr.Misc.No.24770 of 2000(P), Cr.Misc.No.25955 of 2000(P) and Cr.M.P.No.192 of 2003 have been placed before me for final disposal.

¶25

Having taken notice of the fact stated above, it does appear that when the complainant was put under suspension, the complainant lodged the case wherein the complainant admits about the factum of the suspension and then the allegation has been levelled against the petitioner and other accused, Poonam Singh of assaulting and also of committing offence under the Prevention of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Not only that the complainant also did file FIR which was registered as Deoghar P.S case no.17 of 1999 wherein the allegation what was made was quite different from the allegation made in the complaint.

¶26

However, taking into account all these aspects of the matter, it does appear that the complainant was having grudge against the District Superintendent of Education and the petitioner as the complainant had been put to suspension and therefore, the case seems to have been filed for wreaking vengeance and thereby the case appears to be of malicious prosecution.

¶27

At this stage, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp(1) SCC 335] wherein their Lordships have been pleased to lay down categories of the cases by way of illustration has been pleased to lay down the categories of the cases by way of illustrations wherein extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. One of such categories is as follows:

¶28

“ Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge .”

¶29

As has been noticed above, the aforesaid complaint case has been

¶30

lodged with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. In this situation, if the complaint case is allowed to be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of the process of the court.

¶31

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of P.C.R.case no.30 of 1999 including the orders dated 5.8.2000 and 9.12.2002 taking cognizance is hereby quashed.

¶32

In the result, this application (Cr.M.P.No.192 of 2003) is allowed.

¶33

In that view of the matter, no further order needs to be passed in

¶34

Cr.Misc. No.24770 of 2000(P) and Cr.Misc.No.25955 of 2000 (P).

¶35

Thus, all the three application stand disposed of.

¶36

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi The 13^th September, 2012, NAFR/N.Dev

Punam Singh v. State And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punam Singh v. State And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Pravesh Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Anadi Prasad Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

C.S.P.Choudhary Chandra Shekhar Prasad Choudhary Vs Union of India And Anr.

Principal, Mahendra Prasad Int Vs Rupam Sinha And Ors.

Naresh Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ravindra Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Ram Pravesh Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Anadi Prasad Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

C.S.P.Choudhary  Chandra Shekhar Prasad Choudhary Vs Union of India And Anr.

Principal, Mahendra Prasad Int Vs Rupam Sinha And Ors.

Naresh Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ravindra Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand

C.S.P.Choudhary Chandra Shekhar Prasad Choudhary Vs Union of India And Anr.