TINPLATE COMPANY OF INDIA LTD Vs. GAUTAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482, Crl P. C. has been preferred for quashing the whole criminal proceeding in J. C./I. 94/84 pending before Shri Narayan Prasad Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur against the petitioner and also specifically the order dated 5-2-1994 should be held to be illegal having no force in the eye of law.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that one Narayan Chand Das father of the present opposite party filed a complaint before the C. J.' M., Jamshedpur on the ground that the petitioner-Company being a licensee of the Electricity Board allowed electric supply connection to the complainant-opposite party and the same was withdrawn without any rhym and reason and even after several request and also assurance made earlier, the same had not yet been restored which caused damages to the tune of Rs. 2,000 to the complainant. On the basis of said complaint and after enquiry cognizance was taken against the petitioner. Against that order of cognizance, the petitioner came to this Court in Criminal Revision No. 241 of 1984(R) and the same was disposed of vide order dated 10-5-1988 holding that the petitioner can raise all his point before the trial court after appearance by filing application, which would be disposed of by the learned court below according to the law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed petition for their discharge vide Annexure-3. The same was heard and then impugned order was passed holding that the point raised by the petitioner can only be adjudicated at an appropriate stage. Against this order, the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the whole criminal proceeding and notice was sent to the opposite party at the admission stage. The matter was heard at the admission stage itself at length.

(3.) It should further be mentioned here that once this complaint petition was dismissed for default and then the complainant came up before this Court in Cr. Revision No. 113/91(R), which was allowed at the admission stage without giving notice to the petitioner. In course of proceeding before the court below, the original complainant died and as is revealed, his son the present opposite party was allowed to conduct the prosecution in the nature and circumstances of the case.