Allowed

Dr.Indu Singh v. the State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC1 Aug 2018Cr.M.P./127/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings (Sections 465/469/34 IPC) instituted against retired employees. The court noted the dispute was a service matter settled via Labour Court award, full dues were paid, and the complainant filed the case specifically to initiate criminal action post-settlement.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 840 of 2007 including the order dated 04.10.2007 taking cognizance is quashed and set aside.

Dr.Indu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M. P. No. 124 of 2008

¶3

With Cr. M. P. No. 127 of 2008

¶4

¶5

1.Peter Bonnerjee 2.T. Jayakrishnan 3.V. L. Gangrus … … Petitioners (in Cr.M.P. No. 124 of 2008) Dr. Indu Singh … … Petitioner (in Cr.M.P. No. 127 of 2008) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand … … 2.Triveni Singh Opposite Parties (in both the cases)

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. S. L. Agarwal, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 1: Mr. S. K. Srivastava, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate

¶9

¶10

18/01.08.2018 Heard Mr. S. L. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶11

As both the cases arises out of a common order, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

¶12

The petitioners are aggrieved by the initiation of the criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No. 840 of 2007 including the order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st class, Jamshedpur by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 465/469/34 of I.P.C.

¶13

A complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 in which it was alleged that the complainant who was a permanent employee of M/s. TELCON was elected as Assistant Secretary of Telcon Workers Union till 31.03.2016. It has been alleged that the Secretary of the Union was making pressure to the management to form a new Committee for getting proper benefit and wages interest of the workers.

¶14

It has been alleged that the management in order to disturb the complainant opposed the parallel union run by Yugal Kishore Yadav. The management wanted to discharge the complainant from the service

¶15

of the company. It has further been alleged that pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by the management, an allegation was levelled that the complainant had installed a tube-well in his house. The complainant has alleged that there is no land in the name of the complainant and he was falsely alleged of having installed a tube-well. It has also been alleged that the accused no. 3 had submitted a forged and fabricated report in order to enable the management to discharge the complainant from the service of the company.

¶16

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Complaint Case No. 840 of 2007 was instituted. Upon conducting an inquiry, cognizance was taken for the offence under Sections 465/469/34 of I.P.C.

¶17

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were the officials of M/s. TELCON who all have since retired. It has been stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties. With respect to illegal installing of tube-well in the house, a departmental proceeding was initiated, in which the complainant was found guilty and vide order dated 28.10.2006, he was discharged from the services of the Company w.e.f. 02.06.2006. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant approached the Department of Labour, Employment and Training pursuant to which the matter was referred to the Labour Court in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel submits that only in view of the fact that the complainant was discharged from the services of the Company, he has instituted a false case and even otherwise, the matter has been compromised for which he has referred to the supplementary affidavit and has further submitted that the entire dues of the complainant has been paid by the Company.

¶18

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 however showed his inability to take any instruction from the opposite party no. 2 as to whether the matter has been settled or not.

¶19

In fact this case is running since 2008 and on several occasions, the case was adjourned. The supplementary affidavit which has been filed by the petitioner does suggest that a memorandum of settlement has been entered into between TELCON Ltd. now known as Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company Pvt. Ltd. and the opposite party no. 2, where reference has also been given of an Award passed on 08.08.2013

¶20

-3-

¶21

by the Labour Court in Ref. Case No. 3 of 2007. It appears that both the parties are signatories to the Memorandum of Settlement and the entire amount which was payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 39,73,585/- was paid. One of the terms and conditions which have been agreed upon is that the complainant was to file a petition before this Court in the present case to bring to the notice of this Court that the matter has been settled between the parties. However, no affidavit has been filed as the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 seems oblivious that the matter has indeed been compromised between the parties.

¶22

Mr. S. L. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire amount of Rs. 39,73,585/- has already been paid to the opposite party no. 2. Since the dispute indeed appears to be as a result of domestic inquiry conducted against the opposite party no. 2 and his subsequent discharge from service, and the Award passed by the learned Labour Court was also adhered to and the entire dues of the opposite party no. 2 having already been paid by the Company, the same would thus indicate that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court.

¶23

In view of what has been stated above, this application stands allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 840 of 2007 including the order dated 04.10.2007 by which cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur for the offences under Sections 465/469/34 of I.P.C. is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶24

Pending I.A., if any also stands disposed of.

¶25

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶26

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Dr.Indu Singh v. the State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Indu Singh v. the State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghasinath Kar Vs State of Jharkhand

Dipak Kumar Kanodia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravi Singh Alias Ravi Sharma Alias Ravi Bhardwaj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Peter Bonnerjee And Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ram Kishun Sonar And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.