IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL, J.
Manoj Sahu @ Manoj Kumar Sahu Son of Mahendra Kumar Sahu and Ors - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar and Ors - Opposite Party
Criminal Miscellaneous No.24236 of 2019
Decided On : 07-05-2019
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Against the order of cognizance – Complainant terminated from his service on account of his failure to join new assignment – Petitioners being the officers of the company from where the complainant got himself terminated – Petitioners implicted in the case by setting up malicious and malafide story of chasing the complainant and his son from Chhatisgarh to Aurangabad along with other two persons just for slating him in the name of his caste – Complaint petition appears to be abused and improbable – Order taking cognizance against the petitioners quashed – Petition allowed. (Paras 2 to 4 & 6 to 8)
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.02.2016 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Aurangabad in Complaint Case no. 842 of 2015, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that O.P. no. 2 Ramdhin Ram @ Ramdahin Ram filed Complaint Case no. 842 of 2015 against the petitioners with the allegation, in succinct, that O.P. No. 2 was Junior Technician (Mechanical) in Hofincons Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd. under Jindal Steel Power Ltd. (JSPL) situated at Kirorhi Nagar P.S. Kotra Road, District-Raigarh (Chhatisgarh) while the petitioners are working as Engineer, Administrative cum Account Officer and Manager, respectively, in the said company. The complainant abruptly fell ill on 02.05.2015 and he was treated in the hospital of the Company and when he recovered from the illness, he got fitness certificate on 09.05.2015, and when he tried to resume his job on 18.05.2015, the petitioner no. 2 asked the complainant to give in writing that he had taken leave on false ground and snatched his gate pass forcibly and also asked him to tender his resignation else he would be thrashed by the security guards. The complainant made complaint to the Labour Enforcement Officer, Raigarh regarding the aforesaid occurrence, but in vain rather he took favour of the petitioners. After the said occurrence, the complainant and his son Harendra Kumar proceeded to his village located at district Aurangabad by train on 25.05.2015 and when they alighted from the train at Anugrah Narayan station, the petitioners along with two other unknown persons surrounded them and petitioner no. 2 slated him by the name of his caste extending threatening of dismissal from his service. The two unknown miscreants tried to assault the complainant, but he was rescued by the locals. The complainant suspected his abduction and murder at the hands of the petitioners. Earlier to the complaint petition, the complainant had sent legal notice to the petitioners, but in vain.
4. During the course of inquiry, O.P. no. 2 examined himself on S.A. and also examined one witness, who happens to be his son.
5. Learned Magistrate after perusing the complaint petition, S.A., deposition of the witness and finding making out prima facie case took cognizance of the offence under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. As a matter of fact, the complainant was serving as Junior Technician (Mechanical) in Hofincons Infotech Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd. district-Raigarh. Subsequently, he was transferred from JSPL Raigarh (Chhatisgarh) to JSW Steel Ltd. Selam, Tamil Nadu and vide letter dated 19.05.2015, he was directed to join his new assignment. But as he did not comply the same. He was given notice to furnish an explanation within 72 hours for non-joining his new assignment vide letter dated 29.05.2015, but in vain. Thereafter, vide letter dated 03.06.2015, he was terminated from his service and he was asked to take his dues pending before the company to the tune of Rs. 6018/-, but he did not turn up before the company. Then the aforesaid amount was sent to him through cheque at his permanent address vide letter dated 11.08.2015. Being peeved with the aforesaid action taken against the complainant and under wrong impression that his aforesaid transfer and action was taken against him at the instance of the petitioners, the complainant has lodged this false case with altogether wrong and concocted story against the petitioners. It is highly improbable that the petitioners, who are posted in Chhatisgarh will
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.