KUMARI HARUN KURASHI Vs. MOHAMMAD ASHRAFK KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to set aside order dated 22.09.2017 passed by 3rd A.J. to the Court of 1st A.S.J., Bhopal in Criminal Revision No. 345/2017, wherein the order dated 16.05.2017 and 23.05.2017 passed by the J.M.F.C., Bhopal in R.T. No. 964/2005 has been affirmed.

(2.) Bereft of the unnecessary details the case of the complainant/petitioner in brief is that she filed a complaint under Sections 181, 204, 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on 27.04.1998, alleging that she was working in Nagar Nigam Office at Bhopal, she submitted her academic certificate while joining the office at Bhopal. The accused person committed criminal conspiracy and manipulated her mark sheet, in which the birth year was written as 1955 and which was manipulated to 1963. Report was lodged against the complainant/petitioner at police Station Talaiya. Offence under Section 420, 467, 471, was lodged at crime No. 288/1990. The matter was traveled to the Court of J.M.F.C Bhopal, as Criminal Case No. 4438/1997.

(3.) On 06.10.1997 the complainant/petitioner was discharged. She alleges that the accused persons (including the petitioner), are responsible for manipulation of her documents and thereby she was made a victim of such criminal proceeding. It is also stated that the documents were lying with the Nagar Nigam Office, Bhopal. The complainant/petitioner was then terminated from the office. Therefore, she lodged the complaint against the accused persons including the applicant. Applicant was the Executive Officer of Bhopal Municipal Corporation at the relevant time. When the complainant joined services in the year 1983, the applicant was not the Executive Officer, but he was the Executive Officer on 27.08.1990, when the complainant/ petitioner was terminated from the service. In Criminal Case No. 4438/1997, the complainant/petitioner was discharged on the basis of the absence of original mark sheet in which it was alleged that the document is forged by her. It does not mean that the complainant/petitioner was discharged on merits.