SANGRAM KESHARI MISHRA Vs. AMULYA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed a complaint petition before the SDJM, Bhanjanagar, registered as ICC No.55 of 2003, inter alia alleging commission of offences under Sections 167/193/218/406/409/416/420/427/468/477 -A/506/34 IPC against the present opposite parties. It was stated that the petitioner -complainant was working as a Lecturer in Mathematics in the Anchalika Mahavidyalaya and after leaving the said job was working as an Demonstrator in Chemistry in the Savitri Womens College, Bhanjanagar. During his service in the Anchalika Mahavidyalaya he was getting a remuneration of Rs.200.00 per month, but then he was compelled by the accused -Principal Amulya Das to put his signatures on revenue stamps affixed to blank pages of Acquittance Roll of the said college. It was alleged that on 3.2.1987 the petitioner -complainant along with other Lecturers had submitted a Memorandum making three or four demands. The accused Principal however manipulated the said Memorandum to show as if the same was a mass resignation letter and on that basis on 10.3.1987 Dr. Panu Naik, the then President of the Governing Body of the college and others accepted the same as resignation letter. Besides, many other allegations were made in the complaint petition. The SDJM after perusing the complaint petition and the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of others recorded under Section 202 CrPC came to the conclusion that the materials did not reveal the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused persons. He found that the dispute as was evident from the allegations made in the complaint petition centred among the Lecturers and the college administration and the same could be ventilated in proper forum and the criminal Court could not interfere in that matter. On the basis of such conclusion and the Court below dismissed the complaint petition under Section 203 CrPC by order dated 8.7.2004 which is sought to be quashed in this case.

(2.) MISS Ratho, learned counsel for the petitioner, forcefully submitted that the Court below ought not to have dismissed the complaint petition in exercise of the power conferred upon it under Section 203 CrPC without issuing notice to the complainant and, as such, the order of the Court below in that regard is vulnerable in law. In support of her submission she relied upon several decisions.

(3.) IN the case at hand, the Magistrate has carefully considered the allegations made in the complaint petition and perused the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of others recorded during the proceeding under Section 202 CrPC. After going through the aforesaid materials, the Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the same did not reveal commission of the offences by the accused persons as alleged, and rather disclosed a dispute between the Lecturers and the college administration. The Magistrate has also found that interference of the criminal Court was not warranted in such case.