LAWS(DLH)-2008-3-161

M K RAZDAN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

Decided On March 03, 2008
M.K.RAZDAN Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under section 397/401 read with Section 482 cr. P. C. by the petitioners for setting aside summoning order dated 5th August, 2005 passed by learned Magistrate and also for quashing of proceedings arising out of complaint case No. 1016/2004 titled as "indukant Dixit vs. M. K. Razdan and Anr. " under Sections 211/463/464/465/469 and 471 IPC, pending in the court of Magistrate.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that respondent No. 2, Indukant Dixit has filed the above mentioned complaint case against the present petitioners in the court of magistrate on the allegations that he is employee of Press Trust of India (PTI) and is currently working as a Reporter PTI-Bhasha posted at Jammu. Petitioner No. 1 is the General Manager/ceo/ Editor-in-chief of the Press Trust of India and petitioner no. 2, Ms. Padma Alva is the Regional manager (North) in Press Trust of India.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 is a member of PTI employees' Union Delhi and takes active interest in its activity. In January, 2001, respondent No. 2 won the election and became the national councilor of Federation of PTI Employees Union and he raised bona fide demands of the employees and also protested against the autocratic style of functioning of petitioner No. 1. Ever since respondent No. 2, started actively participating in the Trade Union activities and raised his voice in protest against the petitioner, the petitioner in collusion with m. S. Yadav, the Joint Secretary of the federation of PTI Employees Union, started targeting, harassing, victimizing respondent no. 2 on the one pretext or other with a view to compel him to leave the organisation. Later on, petitioners in collusion and connivance with Ms. Ekta Thani, falsely implicated respondent No. 2 in the matter of sexual harassment of Ms. Ekta Thani and respondent No. 2 started getting show cause letters on one false ground or the other. Petitioners 1 and 2 made the life of respondent no. 2 worse than hell and started harassing and victimizing and pressuring him by leveling false charges on him, so that he leave the organization.