JITENDRA NATH TRIPATHI Vs. PRABHUNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is for quashing of a criminal case being Case No. C -141 of 1980 pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj under Ss. 469 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Opposite Party No. 1 had filed a complaint on 4 -3 -1980 naming the petitioner as an accused and also one Ram Chandra Prasad Varma, Assistant Marketing Officer. It had been alleged that the complainant -opposite party No. 1 happened to be a respectable citizen. He has got respect in the society. In addition of cultivation, he has got other business also. He is also a successful politician and the supporter of Smt. Indira Gandhi. In the last election for Parliament he had tremendously worked and on account of his work only the Congress candidate could be elected. Since thereafter, the petitioner, who happened to be the Sub -Divisional Magistrate at the relevant point of time had become vindictive against him. Accordingly, he was bent upon damaging the complainant -opposite party No. 1 and also his business. On 25 -2 -1980 sufficient stock of diesel oil had arrived at Gopalganj, but motivated the petitioner had not allotted any such diesel to the complainant. Accordingly, on 29 -2 -1980 the complainant telephoned to the petitioner at about 10 A. M. and had made a grievance for the same. The petitioner had stated that such things cannot be talked on telephone and further asked him to come in his office. At about 2 P. M. the complainant went to the office of the petitioner after obtaining due permission for the same. He had asked the petitioner as to why his attitude towards him was so stiff and unjustified. The moment the complainant had started talk with the petitioner, the petitioner had told the complainant that why he had approached the District Collector and had made a grievance against him. Thereupon the complainant had stated that he had not made a grievance against him to the Collector but he had simply put forward his difficulties to the Collector. Thereupon the petitioner had told the complainant that he happened to be the Congress (I) supporter and they had made Smt. Indira Gandhi Prime Minister and, therefore, the complainant should ask Smt. Indira Gandhi as to why the diesel was not being made available. The complainant thereafter stated that after all Smt. Indira Gandhi would not come to distribute Diesel oil and for that purpose the petitioner has been appointed and further the complainant had told him that he should not unnecessarily drag the name of Smt. Indira Gendhi. Thereafter, the petitioner became furious and told the complainant that he was a "big smuggler". He indulges in smuggling. He "loots people". The petitioner threatened him that he would be completely destroyed. The complainant had told the petitioner that law has not authorised him to hurl abuses and, therefore, he should refrain from doing the same. The petitioner thereafter told him that now he would teach him lesson. Simultaneously he disclosed that the complainant was arrested and he would not go out from that place Thus the complainant was confined illegally and was made to sit in his office. The petitioner had telephoned to the Officer In charge of Gopalganj police station and asked him to come with arm force. Soon thereafter the Officer In charge with 7 -8 armed police had come into the office of the petitioner. The petitioner had told the Officer In charge that he should arrest the complainant. On this order, the Officer incharge Gopalganj took away the complainant to the Gopalganj police station and detained him for several hours A mob of several persons had collected. The Officer In charge had telephoned to the petitioner that no report under Sec. 353 of the Indian Penal Code had been sent. Ultimately, when report had reached, the complainant opposite party No. 1 had been released from the custody. It appears that earlier the petitioner had gone to his house. He had called accused No. 2 (Marketing Officer). Further the complainant claims that he had learnt that after talk in between the two and out of conspiracy the Marketing Officer (accused No. 2) on the pressure of the petitioner fabricated a false case. Further the assertion is that Sri Nagina Rai, M. P. had taken out a big procession protesting against the arrest of the complainant. Consequently, as stated above, the complainant had been released at about 4.30 P.M. The allegation is that the petitioner and accused no. 2 had cooked up a false case against him.

(3.) It appears that the complaint had been enquired into under Sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ultimately cognizance has been taken for the offence under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code and processes have been issued against the petitioner and the Marketing Officer.