RAM PRAKASH DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Ram Prakash Dwivedi, by filing an application under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sought for quashing of the proceeding brought against him under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code being Miscellaneous Petition Case No. 39 of 2004 on the basis of false and fabricated allegation. This relates to Naxalbari Police Station Case No. 96 of 2001 dated 28.7.2004 under section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (G.R. No. 686 of 2004), now pending before the learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri, Darjeeling.

(2.) Grievances of the petitioner, as ventilated in the application, may briefly be stated as follows: One Narendra Nath Singh, a private security guard, filed a complaint under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Court of sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri. The learned Court after pursuing the said complaint passed an order dated 16.6.2004 directing investigation of the matter after treating the complaint as FIR under section 156(3) of Cr. PC, though there is no ingredient of alleged offence under section 3(i) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The allegations made in the said complaint are inherently absurd and improbable and, as such, there could be no ground for proceeding against the petitioner.

(3.) The complainant was not an employee of the Kendriya Vidyalaya but was deployed there for security purpose through Supreme Security Services having its office at Siliguri. The said agency is having contract with the Vidyalaya for providing security guards year to year - subject to renewal. Service of the complainant was terminated by his employer. A theft took place in the computer room of the Vidyalaya and the in- charge of the computer lab lodged a written complainant about breaking of a lock and handle of the door and loss of two sound boxes. An enquiry committee consisting of three senior teachers headed by Shri R.C. Mishra submitted a detailed report and raised finger towards the complainant. Such activities of the complainant were detrimental to the larger interest of the Vidyalaya and, as such, the Supreme Security Service, as the employer of the complainant terminated his service on 4.2.2004. The petitioner herein being the Principal of Vidyalaya had no role to play in such termination of the said employee. The petitioner could never had any hatred towards the complainant for his background as a member of the Scheduled Caste community.