RANJEET DATTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two petitioners, who were posted as General Manager and Deputy Manager respectively in the Indian Tourism and Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the ITDC") and posted in the ITDC "Hotel Patliputra Ashok", Patna, have approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of an order dated 08.08.2000 passed by Sri N.B. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Patna in complainant case No. 236(C) of 1997. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that Opposite Party No. 2 claiming to be an authorized person of one M/s Trishul Shakti Travel and Tours filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial magistrate, Patna, which was numbered as complaint case No. 236(C) of 1997 against one Dy. Superintendent of Police, four unknown constables and both the petitioners on an allegation of commission of offences under Sections 342, 499, 500 and 427 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint petition that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 27.02.1997 in the day time, he telephonically instructed the Management of Hotel Patliputra Ashok to provide lunch to seven foreigner tourist passengers and thereafter the complainant left for his residence. After 20-30 minutes, he received telephonic message from his foreigner tourists that Hotel Patliputra Ashok was not providing lunch. Immediately thereafter, the complainant rushed to Hotel Patliputra Ashok and carried the tourists to Hotel Chanakaya and thereafter he returned to Patliputra Ashok Hotel. It was disclosed that in the hotel, he found both the petitioners and he inquired from the petitioners as to why they did not provide lunch. However, the petitioners did not give a proper reply. Immediately thereafter, the complainant was asked by two police constables to come to Kotwali Police Station since the Dy. Superintendent of Police had directed the constable to do that. The complainant was thereafter carried to Kotwali Police Station. The complainant had made several allegations against the Dy. Superintendent of Police regarding misbehaviour with the complainant. On that allegation, a complaint was filed. After conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences against the petitioners, as stated above.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, both the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 7.5.2002. On 28.6.2001. While issuing notice to Opp. Party No. 2, this Court had directed that no coercive steps may be taken against the petitioners and subsequently by an order dated 12.05.2003 this Court directed that further proceeding in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 236(C) of 1997 shall remain stayed during the pendency of this application. The order of stay is still continuing.