SANDIP KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision on behalf of prospective accused Dr. Sandip Kumar Mukhopadhyay of Kolkata seeks quashing of summoning order dated 9.12.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Allahabad.

(2.) Opposite party no. 2/complainant instituted a complaint stating therein that the revisionist Dr. Sandip Kumar Mukhopadhyay a resident of Kolkata has been visiting Satyam Kriya Yog Ashram, Allahabad for several years. He used to introduced himself as Chairman/Managing Director of a firm in the name and style of M/s Macrotech (India) Ltd. The revisionists promised a job for any kin of complainant on furnishing the security in terms of money. The revisionist is said to have handed over his visiting card indicating his status as Chairman/Managing Director of the firm M/s Machrotech (India) Ltd to the complainant. The complainant requested him to provide a job for his son. He paid Rs. 25,000/- to the revisionist/accused on 8.11.2009 at 5 p.m. in Satyam Kriya Yog, Ashram, Jhunsi, Allahabad in presence of witnesses namely Radhey Shyam and Sushil Kumar.

(3.) Revisionist/ accused allegedly promised a job for son of complainant within ten days. He also sought additional installment of Rs. 25,000/- at the time of issuance of appointment letter for which the complainant agreed. As no job materialised, the complainant was impelled to make enquiries at Satyam Kriya Yog Ashram, Jhunsi, Allahabad. Some Ashram inmates (not named) allegedly badmouthed the revisionist and told the complainant that he has been cheated. Complainant reported this matter to the police Station Jhunsi but neither the FIR was lodged nor any investigation/inquiry conducted. Deputy Inspector General of Police was also approached but he also failed to ensure any enquiry into the matter. Therefore, the complainant was compelled to file the present complaint on 3.2.2010. Learned Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, learned Magistrate issued direction for investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 3.8.2010 and sought a report by 30.9.2010. A copy of the complaint was also sent to the police station. But strangely no report of investigation/enquiry was submitted by the police. Several dates were fixed by the courts. Virtually on each date, advocates refrained from judicial work on account of strike. On one occasion, learned Magistrate had gone out for training. Suddenly on 30.11.2010, arguments were heard on behalf of the complainant without apparently insisting on submission of the police report which had been ordered by the learned Magistrate himself. On 10th day a cryptic summoning order was passed without the benefit of report of investigation. Hence this revision.