RANVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a common order, the present petition as well as Cri. Misc. No. 598-M of 2005, also filed by the petitioner, are being disposed of.

(2.) THE complaint dated 1-7-1999 was filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner and two others with a prayer that they be summoned to face the trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/34, I. P. C. The complainant had alleged that her son-in-law Hoshiar Singh was posted as Assistant Divisional Engineer (Telecommunication) at Srinagar (J and K)since 8-2-1999 and the petitioner, who was at that time posted as Chief General Manager, northern Telecom Projects, was the incharge of the affairs of the telecommunication and having territorial jurisdiction of kashmir. On 18-5-1999, the Government of india promoted son-in-law of the complainant, along with other Assistant Divisional engineers, against the post of Divisional engineer (Telecommunication) and posted him at Bahadurgarh (Haryana ). He was asked to join at Bahadurgarh within 40 days. The complainant came to know about it on 10-6-1999, on receiving a letter sent by her son-in-law, who had written therein that the petitioner was neither accepting his promotion as divisional Engineer (Telecommunication)nor his posting at Bahadurgarh and instead insisting to retain him at Srinagar for another year. Accordingly, the complainant, along with her daughter-in-law Raj bala, went to the petitioner on 14-6-1999 in his office at New Delhi and requested him to relieve her son-in-law from Srinagar. She was, however, told not to come time and again to him at Delhi and instead contact raghubir Singh Hooda, Ex-President of All india Telecom Association at Rohtak, if she was willing to get her work done. On the following day, i. e. 15-6-1999, when the complainant was present in her house, Raghbir singh Hooda, aforementioned, and his wife met her there and told her that they had come to meet her in response to a telephonic call received by them from accused Ranvir singh. Both of them told the complainant that her son-in-law would be sent to Kargil and Drass in connection with a project and if she wanted to call him back at bahadurgarh against his new promotion and assignment, she should keep ready an amount of Rs. one lac. Accordingly, she withdrew a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from her bank account on 16-6-1999 and collected another sum of Rs. 10. 000/- from her other sources. On 19-6-1999, all the three accused, Ranvir singh, Raghbir Singh Hooda and his wife came to her house at about 9. 00 p. m. and dishonestly and fraudulently induced her to give them an amount of Rs. 50,000/- which she paid to Raghbir Singh Hooda, who after receiving the same handed it over to Ranvir singh accused. She was assured that hep son-in-law would be relieved from Srinagar' shortly and join the service at Bahadurgarh. On the following day, Raghbir Singh Hooda told the complainant that her "son-in-law would not be relieved unless and until the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to them. On this, the complainant brought the matter to the notice of her husband, who in turn called their son-in-law from Srinagar. On 22-6-1999, the complainant, along with her husband and son-in-law, went to Delhi and met Ranvir Singh accused in his office, but he refused to lister) to them and instead asked them to talk to the other two accused, if they intended to get the needful done.

(3.) THE complainant also alleged that ranvir Singh accused relieved all others, who had been promoted along with the son-in-law of the complainant, but retained him at Srinagar. She had been dishonestly and fraudulently induced to pay Rs. 50,000/-and, thus, the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 420/34, I. P. C.