RAM NARAYAN KHARE Vs. ROHINI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26. 12.2022 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Criminal Revision No.74/2022 whereby the order dtd. 12/7/2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Complaint Case No.1789/2022 registering the offence under Ss. 499 and 500 IPC, was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner/Complainant has filed a Complaint Case on 25/4/2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Abmikapur alleging that he is an acclaimed academician and has served as a Chief Proctor of the Sant Gahira Guru University, Surguja, Ambikapur and has also served as Chief Proctor of Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai and Respondent No.1 has served as Ex-Vice Chancellor of Sant Gahira Guru University, Surguja, Ambikapur. The Complainant has also filed a complaint against Respondent No.1 and 3 other employees of the said University under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C at P.S Nevai, District Durg vide Crime No.251/22 for the offence under Ss. 418, 467, 468 and 471 IPC for making unauthorized and forged entries in his service book and Respondent No.1 was enlarged on anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 18/8/2022 passed in M.Cr.C(A) No.1004/2022. The Petitioner in person has alleged in the complaint that Respondent No.1, with mala fide intention of harassing the Complainant and without having any authority, wrongly constituted a two-member Committee on 20/7/2018 and as such, no incident took place on the said date. The Petitioner submits that on the said date, he went to the chamber of Respondent No.1 for obtaining administrative sanction of Rs.1.00 lac for the purpose of his wife's uterus surgery which was scheduled on 20/7/2018, but Respondent No.1 has thrown away the file in an undignified manner and thus insulted him and also made false allegation that he had threatened to kill him. On the next day i.e. 21/7/2018, he submitted his explanation before the higher officials of the University and thereafter, without providing an opportunity of hearing, in contravention of natural justice for commitment of financial irregularities, the Petitioner was suspended from his services on 18/10/2018. The Petitioner has made a representation before the Chancellor/Hon"ble Governor of the University against Respondent No.1 and his suspension was revoked vide order dtd. 29/1/2019. Thereafter, without observing the service norms, by showing that the Petitioner has completed 5 years of service, he has been removed from his services on 31/8/2019 in an arbitrary manner and with a mala fide intention, the relevant note-sheet of 4 pages was removed from the record and to defame him, the aforesaid incident was published in different newspapers, electronic media as also on whatsapp. With regard to the representation of the Petitioner, the Senior Office Chancellor/Hon"ble Governor has constituted a 3-member Committee headed by Dr. RK Brahme, Shri RN Singh and Shri Pankaj Sidar, who found that on 21/4/2021, the entries made in the service book of the Petitioner were forged and at the behest of Respondent No.1, the sub-ordinates of the Petitioner have also admitted the same during enquiry. The Petitioner has examined himself and also examined the witnesses namely Vijay Kumar Shukla (CW-2), Piyush Rai (CW-3), Nirvikar Goutam (CW-4) and Dr. Robin Thomas (CW-5) under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. After considering the statement of the Complainant/Petitioner and his witnesses, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dtd. 12/7/2022, has registered an offence under Ss. 499 and 500 IPC against Respondent No.1. against which, Respondent No.1 has preferred a Criminal Revision before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surguja in which, by way of the order impugned, the order taking cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was set aside.

(3.) The Petitioner in person submits that the order impugned is not sustainable and contrary to the record and is also bad in law. He drew the attention of this Court to the proceedings contained in the note-sheet recorded on 19/3/2020 in which, it has been mentioned that in the appointment letter of the Petitioner or even in the advertisement published, there was no stipulation that the appointment of the Petitioner was only for a period of 5 years, hence, his removal from the service is not justifiable and he was appointed as per Sec. 49(2) of the University Act and it was also observed that there was some previous malice between him and Respondent No.1.