JAI BHAGWAN GOYAL @ GYANA Vs. HARJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 202, presented on 18.9.2009 (Annexure P -1), titled as "Harjeet Kaur v. Jai Bhagwan Goyal @ Gyana and others", pending adjudication before the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, District Kaithal; summoning order dated 4.1.2014 (Annexure P -3); and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner, Jai Bhagwan Goyal @ Gyana.

(2.) THE epitome of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the purpose of deciding the present petition for quashing of the criminal complaint (Annexure P -1) and the summoning order (Annexure P -3), emanating from the record is that the respondent -complainant, Harjeet Kaur, remained posted as a Supervisor for the period from 28.12.2005 to 31.8.2009, in the office of the Project Officer, Women and Child Development Department, Haryana, at Guhla -Cheeka (Kaithal). For her sincerity, the respondent -complainant received various commendations and appreciation letters from her department. She was the Supervisor of Daba and Cheeka Circles, where 59 Anganwari Workers were working under her. Babita, wife of Tarsem (respondent No. 3 in the complaint) was working as a Anganwari Worker at Sanjay Basti Anganwari Centre, which was under the control of the respondent -complainant. Babita was one of the eight Anganwari Workers, who were to be deputed for training imparted by the department.

(3.) ON 21.4.2009, the respondent -complainant asked Babita to go for training, but she (Babita) refused to go for training. On 25.4.2009, Babita along with her sister -in -law (Nanad) went to the house of the respondent -complainant and offered a bribe of Rs. 200/ - so that Babita might not be deputed to attend the training programme. The respondent -complainant refused to accept the offer and told them that the matter would be brought to the notice of the higher officers. On 28.4.2009, the respondent -complainant moved a written complaint to the C.D.P.O., Guhla, regarding the offer of Rs. 200/ - to her by Babita. The C.D.P.O. called for the explanation of Babita vide letter No. 47, dated 11.5.2009. In response thereto, Babita denied the allegation and levelled counter allegations against the respondent -complainant.