The court emphasized that while examining the issue of quashing of cognizance and proceedings, it should only see whether a prima facie case is made out from the material available on record.

ORDER :

Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 02.12.2019 and further proceedings thereto pursuant to private complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No. 1. By the impugned order, the JMFC Waidhan, District-Singrauli took the cognizance against the applicant under Sections 406, 469 and 120-B of IPC.

2. According to case, complainant/respondent No. 1 has filed a private complaint before the JMFC, Waidhan stating therein that respondent No. 1 was posted as T.G.T. at Delhi Public School Vindhyanagar, District-Singrauli. The present applicant was working as a Principal of said school. While posting of the complainant, the present applicant wanted some illegal benefit and on refusal thereof, he started keeping grudge with the complainant and on account thereof, on 11.07.2018, in conspiracy with other persons, the present applicant asked about the conduct report of the complainant from the other co-accused (R.K. Pandey, Principal of DPS, Agra) and head of Kids Corner Happy Senior Secondary School, Firozabad and in response thereof co-accused-R.K. Pandey and Deepak Kumar (Clerk of Kids Corner Happy Senior Secondary School, Firozabad) had sent a false e-mail about the conduct of complainant/respondent No. 1 to the present applicant and based on the aforesaid conduct report, the present applicant recommended the termination of complainant/respondent No. 1 and therefore on 23.03.2019, the complainant was terminated from his post without giving any opportunity of hearing. As per the complainant/respondent No. 1, when he wrote a letter to the earlier Principal of DPS Agra, he had received the report about his good conduct. He further mentioned in the complaint that he also wrote a letter to Ms. Rupali Bhatnagar, Principal of Kids Corner Happy Senior Secondary School, Firozabad, who informed him that the e-mail about the work conduct was falsely sent by the clerk Deepak Kumar, who has been terminated now.

3. After recording the statements of complainant as well as two other witnesses, the learned JMFC found sufficient reason to take the cognizance under Sections 406, 469 and 120-B of the IPC against the present applicant and other co-accused-RK. Pandey.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned JMFC has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire complaint has been initiated in order to achieve ulterior motive. He submits that the learned JMFC has also failed to look the fact that the action taken by the DPS Society is civil nature, against which criminal proceeding can not be initiated. The complaint does not show necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 406, 469 and 120-B of the IPC. In fact, the present applicant is working as Principal and on account of undesirable behaviour of the complainant as well as in response to complaint filed by the students and their parents, the present applicant has only sought feedback from the earlier employer of the complainant which can not be termed as an offence under the IPC. For the sake of argument, if it is presumed that the allegations made by the complainant is true, even then, no offence is made out against the present applicant as allegation regarding preparing or sending false work conduct report, is against the Deepak Kumar who has not been impleaded as an accused in private complaint. In support of private complaint filed by the respondent No. 1, no witness has been examined who make abundantly clear that any alleged misconduct was ever done by the applicant. There is no prima-facie material which shows any form of connectivity of the present applicant with Deepak Kumar who alleged to have sent a false conduct report of the complainant/respondent No. 1 through e-mail. In fact, a request was made by the present applicant to the complainant to teach other similar subjects but the complainant was refused to do so. In addition to above