D.P. GOEL Vs. SURINDER GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREM Kumar husband of Surinder Gupta respondent worked as a senior Clerk in the office of Executive Engineer, Reservoir Management Division, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Nangal Township and Shri D.P. Goel petitioner was his boss. Ram Chand, father of Prem Kumar had filed some complaints against the officers of Bhakra Beas Management Board for corruption. In order to dissuade Ram Chand from pursuing those complaints Prem Kumar was transferred from Chandigarh to Nangal and in order to further harass him the petitioner directed Shri Jagat Ram head clerk of his office to mark Shri Prem Kumar as absent from duty even though he attended the office. In spite of the fact that Prem Kumar was being marked as absent he continued attending his office and his father was also not dissuaded from pursuing the complaints filed by him which infuriated the petitioner. When Prem Kumar persisted that he should be marked present as he was attending the office regularly the petitioner abused him in the name of his mother and sister and defamed him in the presence of Jagat Ram and his other colleagues. He also threatened him with dire consequences and asked him to leave the office immediately. Jagat Ram, head clerk was told that in case Prem Kumar ever entered the office again he should be done to death. The respondent approached various executive authorities with written requests and also sent complaints to S.S.P. Ropar and to Director General of Police, Punjab, narrating these facts but no action was taken. On these averments Smt. Surinder Gupta filed complaint against Shri D.P. Goel for offences under Section 166, 500, 506, 511 I.P.C. read with section 120-B on behalf of Prem Kumar as he had lost balance of mind on account of harassment, mental agony, defamation and threat of murder. The complaint was presented in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib and the learned trial Court after recording evidence summoned the petitioner to face trial for the offences under Sections 116, 500 and 506 I.P.C.

(2.) SHRI D.P. Goel, Executive Engineer, has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the above referred complaint dated 3.10.1991 Annexure P-1 and summoning order dated 26.3.1992 Annexure P/2 being abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner alleged that whatever act was attributed to him in the complaint was alleged to have been done in the discharge of his duties so sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required before cognizance of the complaint could be taken. In the absence of sanction of the Punjab Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C. which was a condition precedent, the complaint was barred. The allegations made pertained to September, 1987 whereas the complaint was instituted on 3.10.1991. The maximum sentence for the offences for which he was summoned was two years. Thus, as per the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. cognizance of the complaint was wholly barred as the same was filed beyond the maximum prescribed period of three years. No application was moved for condonation of delay. It was further urged that the complainant was not the person aggrieved under Section 199 Cr.P.C. If at all, it was Prem Kumar who was an aggrieved person competent to file the complaint. No permission was granted to the complainant to peruse the complaint and absence of such order showed non-application of judicial mind by the trial Court in passing the summoning order. No medical certificate was produced to show that Prem Kumar was suffering from any infirmity which could furnish a ground to the respondent to file the complaint on behalf of her husband. The complaint was filed on baseless allegations and was malafide. Prem Kumar was held guilty in a departmental enquiry for misconduct and indiscipline and was awarded punishment. He was pursuing his departmental proceedings and filed an appeal against the punishment and he never contended that he was suffering from any infirmity.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.