MADHUKARANKUSHKAMBLE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four petitioners in their application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., seek the quashing of their prosecution in complaint case No. 680 under sections 298, 323, 342, 504 and 506, IPC, pending in the Court of Shri N. K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Katihar.

(2.) The case of the petitioners may be stated in brief. Petitioner No. 1 is the Divisional Commercial Manager, petitioner No. 2, the Divisional Engineer, petitioner No. 3, Inspector of works and petitioner No. 4, Assistant Commercial Manager, N.F. Railway, Katihar. O.P. No. 2 is the Travelling Ticket Examiner, Katihar. On 23.7.93 while petitioner No. 3 was on Katihar railway station in course of his official duties, he was illegally detained by O.P. No. 2. Petitioner No. 3 was produced before the Railway Magistrate and was kept detained for 2-1/2 hours on the ground that he was not having valid ticket or pass. As a result of hue and cry among the railway staff and on the intervention of the senior officers of the railway petitioner No. 3 was let off. On a complaint made by petitioner No. 3, O.P. No. 2 was asked to explain his conduct before petitioner No. 4 and Sri K.S. Verma the competent officers. On the refusal of O.P. No. 2 to explain his conduct petitioner No. 4 suspended O.P. No. 2 with effect from 26.7.93. O.P. No. 2 being annoyed by the aforesaid order of suspension filed a complaint petition on 28.7.93 making false and baseless allegations against the petitioners in league with the Railway Judicial Magistrate posted at Katihar. The complaint mentioned that O.P. No. 2 was T.T.E. in the Magistrate's checking party. On 23.7.93 at about 12 hours he had apprehended petitioner No. 3 at platform No. 5 as he was not carrying any ticket or certificate of the railway. On 26.7.93 Sri K.S. Verma and petitioner No. 4 asked the complaint to make a statement in writing in respect of the incident. When O.P. No. 2 sought for time for the purpose on the ground that he did not have all the relevant papers with him, petitioner No. 4 is said to have threatened him. On 27.7.93 at about 1 p.m. O.P. No. 2 went to the chamber of petitioner No. 1 to present his report where he found the four petitioners and two others whom he could not recognise. O.P. No. 2 then offered to answer any question that may be asked whereupon petitioner No. 1 inquired as to why he had not brought his statement in writing. On being told by O.P. No. 2 that he did not know what petitioner No. 1 wanted to inquire from him, petitioner No. 2 abused him and directed him to state in writing what he had been asked to do. Petitioner No. 3 is then alleged to have placed paper and pen and after catching the neck of O.P. No. 2 asked him to affix his signature thereon. On refusal of O.P. No. 2 to oblige all the accused persons- petitioners are alleged to have caught hold of his hair and collar of the shirt and to have pushed him on to the chair. The petitioners are alleged to have then abused O. P. No. 2 and then threatened to kill him as also to throw him out of the job. Petitioner No. 3 is then alleged to have pushed O.P. No. 2 out of the chamber as a result of which he fell down. The complaint petition mentioned on witness namely Kamaldeo Roy, T.T. E., Katihar. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, examined the complainant on S.A. on 28.7.93 and in course of an inquiry under section 202 Cr. P.C. recorded the statement of Kamaldeo Roy on the same day. A report was also called for from the Railway Judicial Magistrate, which was received on the following day, i.e. 29.7.93 that the complainant, namely O.P. No. 2 and submitted chargesheet against Sheopujan Sharma, i.e. petitioner No. 3 in his Court. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, thereafter passed the impugned order dated 30.7.93 taking cognizance against the accused persons-petitioners for offences under Sections 298, 323, 352 and 500, IPC, and directed issue of summons. The case was then transferred to the file of Sri N.N. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class.

(3.) A supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioners and a counter- affidavit by O.P. No. 2. The petitioners thereafter filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by O.P. No. 2. The case of the petitioners is that issue of summons against the petitioners is patently an abuse of the process of the Court as a false complaint has been filed after concocting a cock and bull story against the senior officers of the railway by a Travelling Ticket Examiner to make a false defence to shield himself against the order of suspension duly passed against him by a competent authority. The prosecution has also been described as incompetent for want of sanction under Section 197, Cr. P.C. as the petitioners are public servants. These contentions have been controverted on behalf of O.P. No. 2.