AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It is directed against the order dated 22.12.2005 passed by Sri Manoj Kumar II, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna whereby he has ordered for issuance of summons to the petitioners (wrongly stated in paragraph No. 1 of the present petition that by this order he has taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioners).

(2.) FROM the facts of this case it would appear that opposite party No. 2 had filed a complaint petition against the present petitioners on various grounds mentioned therein. It has been stated that on 23.11.2002 opposite party No. 2 fell down while practicing at S.A.I. Kolkata and got the retina of his left eye detached. He was examined at Sankar Netralaya where he was operated upon and he incurred an expenditure more than Rs. 1,00,00.00 . Opposite party No. 2 approached the petitioners for the re -imbursement of his claim of Rs. 64,914.50 under the group insurance scheme. However, his claim was not accepted and he was ill treated when he visited the office of the S.A.I. Kolkata by petitioner Nos. 5 to 8. It appears that Complaint Case No. 2769(C) of 2005 was registered and opposite party No. 2 was examined on solemn affirmation. In course of enquiry under sec. 202 of the Code two witnesses were also examined and thereafter the impugned order was passed. The main grievance of opposite party No. 2 is that inspite of the payment of premium of group insurance he was not reimbursed the expenses which he had to incur for his treatment at Sankar Netralaya, Chennai though the doctors at Salt Lake Eye Foundation has recommended for his operation there. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s. Bhajanlal - had held that the courts should exercise their power under sec. 482 of the Code where the allegations made in the complaint petition 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. Moreover the petitioners being Government servants they are entitled for protection u/s. 197 of the Code. On these grounds it has been contended that the impugned be quashed.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 in which it has been stated that he received a call letter from S.A.I. Training Centre, Kalkata. While going through the training there he sustained injury in his eye for which he had to be operated upon at Sankar Netralaya, Channai. The courts at Patna have got jurisdiction to try this case and the petitioners, simply to harass opposite party No. 2. who is a poor person, wants that the trial should took place outside Patna.