SEEMA SEEHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by Seema Sheera and her father, K. S. Sheera under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 23-12-1986 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 499 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code 90 the compiaint of opposite party No. 2, Narain Murti.

(2.) Narain Murti filed a complaint under Section 499 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against R. P. Singh. Ex-captain and petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 wherein he stated that he was an officer of the Bihar Administrative Service and while posted as Circle Officer, Anchal Ranchi, from 1982 to 1985, he filed a complaint against K. S. Seehra under Sections 182, 193, 420, 311 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, being Case No. C 11 60 (a) 84, in which charges had been framed against the accused by the Court at Ranchi. The complainant who was the neighbour of K. S. Seehra and his daughter, refused to withdraw and case filed by him when the two accused approached him for the same. Upon this refusal the two accused threatened the complainant to harm him and malign his charaeter in the eyes of high officials and public in many ways. He was transferred from Ranchi and he joined Revenue Department, Old Secretariat, Patna, Accused No. 1 R. P. Singh, son-in-law of K. S. Seehra, wrote a letter to the Chairman. A.I.C.C. (X) Ex-Servicemen cell New Delhi, on 15th May, 1986 containing defamatory statements intending to harm the reputation of the complainant. In that letter it had been falsely stated that the complainant was instrumental in lodging the case of accident with Nandu police statfon on 23-6-1985. though the case was lodged by one Injured Ram Jatan Yadav on 23-6-1985 in respect of causing injury by rash driving of Car No. WBA-7849 owned by K. S. Seehra. After investigation in that case chargesheet was submitted and the matter was subjudice. So the submission of Chatgesheet was conclusive proof of the fact that the said case was not at all at the instance of the complainant and so the statement of complaint was false and it was made purposely to creat impression in the minds of the complainant's colleagues and both superior and subordinate staff to the effect that the complainant was a man of such character who can go to such a length as to implicate innocent persons. In that letter it was also said that Seema Seehra, accused No. 3 and sister-in-law of accused No. 1 was expelled from B. A. Examination at Women's College on 24-1-1980 at the instance of the complainant. The complainant has got no concern with the management and control of the examination and moreover at that time he was posted at Patna. It was said that all the accused persons with common intention wrote different letters containing false and defamatory statements to harm the reputation of the complainant. The said letter from the Ex. Servicemen Cell, New Delhi, was communicated to the complainant by Capt. Indrajit Singh (retired) Convenor Ex. Serviceman Cell B. P. C. C. (I) Ranchi by his letter dated 1-9-1986, which was in an open envelop, was received by.Sri B. P. Jha, A. D. M., Patna, who in turn diverted the same to be delievcred to the Revenue Department. As the envelop was open, the letter was read by Shiv Nath Singh and others also. Along with this complaint the letter sent by Sri R. P. Singh was also annexed.

(3.) Annexure-3-A to the petition here is a copy of the letter which had been sent by Seema Seehra to the Controller of Examinations, Rachi University saying that when she was writing answer paper (Economic II) in the B A. Final Examination at Women's College, Ranchi, the Administrative Officer-in-charge told the invigilator that cheating was going on in the Hall. While she was busy in writing answers, her answer-sheets were taken away and a chit was picked up from the floor which was lying behind her seat and she was accused of cheating and just a few minutes before it an extra sheet was given to her. She prayed in the application that her examination centre be changed, the second letter annexed with the complaint is dated 13-2-1986 (copy as Annexure 4-B to this petition). In this letter it has been said by K. S. Seehra that he strongly felt that his daughter had been victimised in the B. A. Examination. He also said that the complainant a neighbour, had filed a case against him while he was Circle Officer at Anchal Ranchi and the said case was still going on and though he had been transferred from Ranchi yet he was threatened that he would be entangled in false cases. Though he was present in the factory Usha Martin Industries Ltd. on the date in question at the relevant time, he was involved in a case for which Mendu Police Office had come to make enquiries in respect of an accident case lodged by some Ram Jatan Yadav on 23-6-1985 at 6.00 P.M. He apprehended that this false case had been filed against him at the instance of the complainant. Further his daughter had been victimised at the instance of the complainant who had threatened to harass the accused so he prayed for quick justice and she be allowed to complete her balance three papers on 21st, 22nd and 24th February, 1986.