S S THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are all persons working in Coats India a Division of Madura Coats Limited. Petitioner no. 1 is the Vice-President Excise, Coats India, having his office at Bangalore, petitioner no. 2 is the Branch Manager, Coats India and is resident and posted at Howrah, petitioner no. 3 is the Executive Sales and Administration Officer, Coats India at Kanpur, petitioner no. 4 is the Territory Sales Incharge (Patna), Coats India but has his office and conducts his business from Howrah and petitioner no. 5 was the man who was running the Coats India at Patna.

(2.) THE Coats India decided that it was not viable to have their office running in Patna and, therefore, decided to close the office.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has referred to several documents such as the notice of closure, the notice of payment of salary and compensation to the workers, the actual payment of the salary to the workmen posted at Patna etc. These documents perhaps cannot be considered by this Court at the present stage. The only facts that may be considered by this Court are the actual allegations made by the complainant. This Court finds it incredible that the Vice-President, Excise, Coats India Limited should travel from Howrah to Patna along with the Branch Manager at Howrah, the Excise Officer posted as Kanpur and the Territory Sales Incharge, Patna posted at Howrah and commit the offences as alleged i.e. snatching of a few hundred of rupees and watch from their erstwhile employees. It is difficult to imagine such a situation where senior officers would be directly involved in a man to man conflict with the employees. If the major part of the case is unbelievable and incredible then it cannot be said that the man who was posted at Patna would have also be present for the purposes of committing the offence or snatching a watch from the complainant. The case seems to have been instituted out of malice towards the senior members of the company who were responsible for closing of the Patna branch and thus responsible also for terminating and disengaging the employees who were working in the branch. This case would fall squarely within the exception 5 and 7 as point by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1992 SUPREME COURT 604, which are Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide.