BRAHMA CHELLANEY Vs. MARPOL PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant who is an accused in C. C. No. 85/p/2003/ iii and against whom process has been issued under section 500 (499 ) by the learned J. M. F. C. , Margao by his order dated 4-9-2003 has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code, for short) to quash and set aside the same.

(2.) The applicant is a professor at the Centre for Policy Research, (C. P. R. ) an institution set up under the aegis of the Indian Council of Social Science research, having been appointed from 1-7-1993. The respondent No. 2 claims to be the Founder Director /president of the said centre for policy research. The differences between the applicant and respondent No. 2 came to the fore when the applicant wrote a letter dated 25-7-2000 to the Chairman of the governing Board of the said CPR, namely, former Chief Justice of India Mr. Justice Y. V. Chandrachud complaining inter alia that CPR being a public institution was being turned into a personal fief of one individual and that the director/president was continuing beyond the age of 65 years in contravention of the Rules of UGC and ICSSR, etc. On 1-8-2000 Mr. Justice Chandrachud informed the applicant that various aspects mentioned by him in the fact sheet attached to his letter dated 25-7-2000 made a disturbing reading and that he would himself talk to the Director regarding some of the matters. On 26-7-2000 the applicant wrote an article on The Hindustan Times' on 'rise of the robber intellectual' and sent a copy of the same to Mr. Justice Chandrachud. On 15-8-2000 the applicant informed respondent No. 2 that when he went on the previous day to the CPR he had found his office door locked without any notice to him. On 16-8-2000 respondent No. 2 terminated the services of the applicant as a Research Professor at the said CPR.

(3.) The applicant, therefore, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court being CWP 5928/2000 and obtained a stay order in favour of the applicant. This was on 5-11-2000. Subsequently, the applicant was allowed to join work on 27-11 -2000 only after the applicant sought police protection to return to work and this was after respondent No. 2 had refused to accept service of the stay order of the High Court.