KRISHNA MOHAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by Sri Hareram Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in Complaint Case No. 2208/2009 by which and whereunder he, having found prima facie case under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, ordered to issue summons against the petitioner and co-accused Santosh Pd. Gupta. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that opposite party no. 2, namely, Arbind Kr. Singh filed the above-stated Complaint Case No. 2208/2009 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan against the petitioner and co-accused Santosh Pd. Gupta alleging therein inter alia that according to rules and regulation of the Bihar Gram Katchary (Employment, Service Conditions and Duties) Rules, 2007, he was appointed on the post of Nyaya Mitra on 29.2.2008 in Gram Panchayat-Goria Kothi, District-Siwan and after appointment, he submitted all the relevant documents relating to his appointment to the concerned block office and participated in training programme at district as well as sub-divisional level which was continued for the period from 11.6.2009 to 13.6.2009. During the training period, he came to know that Panchayat-wise honorarium list had been prepared by the block office but he surprised to see that there was cutting mark on the honorarium relating to opposite party no. 2. On 14.6.2009 he went to block office to get enquired from the petitioner who was working there as Block Development Officer. The petitioner took 15 days' time to examine the complain of opposite party no. 2 and again after 15 days when he went to the block office then the petitioner and co-accused disclosed that relevant certificates of opposite party no. 2 were missing from the record of block office and after that opposite party no. 2 immediately handed over photostat copy of his certificates to the petitioner and co-accused and claimed his honorarium. The petitioner and co-accused again asked opposite party no. 2 to come after one week. Furthermore, it is alleged that again on 4.7.2009 when opposite party no. 2 contacted the petitioner and other accused, the petitioner disclosed that certificates of opposite party no. 2 were not available in the file and for reconstruction of file, the petitioner directed opposite party no. 2 to contact with co-accused and when he contacted co-accused, he demanded Rs. 15,000/- for reconstruction of his file. Opposite party no. 2 made protest and again contacted the petitioner but the petitioner became furious and abused and made derogatory comments against him and after that opposite party no. 2 filed the above-stated complaint case.

(2.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan transferred the complaint case for enquiry and trial to the Court of Sri Hareram Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Siwan and the transferee court having conducted an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. passed the impugned order dated 29.10.2009 which is under challenge before this court in this petition.

(3.) Notices were issued to opposite party no. 2 by this court and in pursuance of the aforesaid notice, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 denying almost all the contents of petition of the petitioner.