M P MEHTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. This application is filed for quashing the order dated 30.3.2007 passed by S.D.J.M., Bhagalpur in Complaint Case No. 1010 of 2005 and also the order dated 20.4.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. II, Bhagalpur in Cr. Revision No. 99 of 2007.

(2.) Some allegations are leveled against petitioners and others by filing complaint case no. 1010 of 2005 which, in brief, is that on 18.5.2005 at about 8.30 A.M., complainant alongwith members of his union was holding a meeting in the office meant for head of union of the department. It is said that petitioners alongwith others asked the complainant and others to vacate the office which was resisted on the ground that petitioners and other officials accompanying them were having no order of the Court, thereupon it is said that co-accused Akhter Imam, S.D.O., Sadar, Bhagalpur abused and ordered to oust all the members after assault. Police Personnel were also ordered to comply the same. In compliance thereof, they were assaulted, dragged and ousted from the office.

(3.) On behalf of petitioners, it is said that no doubt Opposite No. 2 complainant was official of union but had lost in election conducted recently, the newly elected officials represented for premises of N.F.T.E. union and to transfer the same. Further, it is said and argued that Opposite Party No. 2 complainant was asked to vacate the office, for which reminder was also sent. In that course, a prayer was made vide Misc. Case No. 174 of 2005 to restrain officials of B.S.N.L. from putting pressure on him in respect of vacating the premises of the unit (sic--union?). His prayer was refused after hearing both the parties, rather a direction was issued to vacate the premises of the union but Opposite Party No. 2 did not vacate the premises, nor handed over the same to the newly elected officials. So, subsequently the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Bhagalpur passed an order to get the union premises vacated by force by deputing one Executive Magistrate. Election of the union and defeat of the complainant is not denied, rather it is said that there could be no abuse, assault and forceful ouster.