The court emphasized the importance of providing reasons for differing with the final form and the need for careful scrutiny of evidence before summoning the accused in a criminal case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Afaque Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bokaro in connection with C.P.Case No.45 of 2016 where by the learned counsel has taken cognizance against the petitioner under section 354 IPC and also for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner and the case is pending in that learned court.

3. The O.P.no.2 has filed the FIR alleging about the misbehaviour made by this petitioner which was investigated by the police and final form was submitted in which the case has been stated to be not found to be proved and thereafter the O.P.no.2 filed the complaint cum protest petition alleging therein that the complainant has alleged that she along with her family resides at Sector VI/B, Quarter No.2083, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro and she is a law abiding citizen. It has further been alleged that the father of the complainant late Dr. Ranjeet Tripathi was founder lecturer cum former Reader and Head of the Department of Hindi in Bokaro Steel City College, Bokaro. It has further been alleged that the said house in which the complainant and her family members reside, has been allotted by the BSL management. It has further been alleged that on several occasions the petitioner tortured her and her family members on the pretext of vacating the quarter and tried to forcibly vacate the quarter. However, sizable amount of her father could not be paid due to influence of the petitioner. It has further been alleged that on 26.2.2015 at about 6 PM when the complainant was at home in the meantime the accused persons came and knocked her door. When she opened the main door of her house, then accused held her right hand with bad intention and started outraging her modesty talking with filthy language. It has further been alleged that the complainant became afraid and called her sisters and the accused on seeing the person coming there, started fleeing from the house. It has further been alleged that at that relevant time no male members were present in the house and the accused tried to get the benefit of the same. It has further been alleged that the outer door of the house is surrounded with the grill and by chance at that time the same was opened and the accused tried to get the benefit of the same. It has been alleged that a complaint was lodged in the police station but police officer has not done proper investigation and final form was submitted. It has been alleged that after that accused persons came on 21.3.2015 and threatened them for withdrawal of case, failing which ready to face its consequences.

4. Mr. Afaque Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said allegation in the FIR as well as in the protest cum complaint petition are same. He took the Court to both the FIR as well as the protest cum complaint petition. He submits that the learned Court has not accepted the final form and he has not differed with the final form also and only on the protest petition he has taken cognizance which is against the mandate of law. He submits that the petitioner was Principal of Bokaro Steel City, College and the father of the complainant was Head of the Department of Hindi in the said college and has retired in the year 2003 and he has not vacated the quarter and for that several letters have been issued and on malafide intention the FIR was lodged. Since he was being pressurized to vacate the quarter in question which was required to be investigated by the police and final form has been submitted and stating all these facts the case against the petitioner was not found to be true.

5. Per Contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that the Court is competent