Back
2012(3) Crimes 443 (Jhar.)
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
R.R. Prasad, J.
Kumar Jitendra Singh —Petitioner
versus
State of Jharkhand and Anr. —Opp. Parties
Criminal M.P. No. 4502 of 2001
Decided on 12.4.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: None.
For the State:Mr. S.S. Prasad, Advocate.
For the O.P. No.2:Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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 a complaint or first information report can be quashed.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Petition for quashing criminal proceedings for offence under Section 3 of SC and ST Act and Section 323 IPC on ground that it was actuated with malice—Facts revealed that when a request made by complainant before petitioner to stay the order of transfer was turned down, complaint was lodged—Criminal proceedings would be said to have been lodged maliciously with ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance—Abusive language, was used in official chamber of petitioner —Proceedings were liable to be quashed. (Paras 10 to 14)
JUDGMENT
R.R. Prasad, J.—Nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned counsel for the State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Sector-IV B.S. City, P.S. Case No. 121 of 2000 registered under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioner.
3. It does appear that complainant/opposite parry No. 2 lodged a complaint case stating therein that he had joined the service of Bharat Refractories Ltd., Bokaro as Assistant Manager (Marketing and Services). Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager (Marketing and Services) but unfortunately since he belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community, he was discriminated in the matter of promotion and was not promoted to the post of Manager (Marketing and Services) in the year 1997. Thereupon, he wrote a letter to the Chairman, National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, New Delhi on 16.1.1999 requesting therein for redressal of his grievance.
4. It has further been alleged that on 9.11.2000, the petitioner (accused No. 1) called upon the complainant in his Official chambers and abused him in filthy language “Sala Pasi-Tasi Hokar Tum Apna Bap Scheduled Caste Commission Ko Shikayat Likhata Hai, Main Tumhe Saspend Our Charjshit Karuga. Tum Sasle Mera Kuchh Nahin Bigard Sakta Hai, Meri Bhi Upar Tak Pahunch Hai. Promotion Ki Bat to Tum Bhul Hi Jao. Main Tumhe Sale Aisi Saja Dunga Ki Jindagi Bhar Yad Rakhoge. Usne Mujhe Dhakka Dete Hue Chamber Se Bahar Kar Diya.”
5. It has further been alleged that on 4.11.2000 while the complainant was returning back after attending the closing function of Vigilance Awareness Week in which he was one of the prize winners, accused No. 2-R. Mukhopadhyay called him and abused him publicly “Choudhary Sala Tum Harijan Hokar Harish Chandra Our Dharmaraj Yudhishthir Banne Chale Ho Our Bhrastachar Mitane Ka Bada Bada Bhashan Deta Hai. Main Mar Jutas Tera Munh Tord Duga Abhi Dekhte Jao Main Tumhara Kya Durgati Karta Hun”.
6. Thereafter, the complainant received a temporary transfer order on 8.11.2000 which was passed in order to harass and to victimize the petitioner.
7. Upon filing of the said complaint, it was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned police station for its institution and investigation upon which, Sector-IV, B.S. City, P.S. Case No. 121 of 2000 was lodged under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The said prosecution has been challenged to be bad as the same is actuated with malice.
8. It has been stated in the petition that on account of the administrative reason, the Competent Authority temporarily transferred the complainant to Raurkela office vide its order dated 8.11.2000. Upon it, the complainant was relieved and was directed to report to Chief Resident Manager, Raurkela. Against the said order, a representation was filed by the complainant on 20.11.2000 requesting the petitioner to withdraw his order of transfer. Since the petitioner was not the Competent Authority, he referred the representation before the General Manager (P&A) for consideration but when the said order of transfer was not withdrawn, complaint case bearing C.P. Case No. 372 of 2000 was lodged.
9. As against this, Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, submits that the complaint does contain all the ingredients for constituting offence under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and hence the prosecution at this stage never warrants to be quashed. In this regard, it was further submitted that whether the allegation is false or true, it is not to be looked into at this stage, rather it becomes the matter of trial and that the’ ground on which this app
