MOHAMMAD USMAN MALIK Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By medium of instant petition, order passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pattan, on 16.02.2016 in Criminal complaint titled Abdul Hamid Ganie v. Mohd Usman Malik and others , is sought to be set aside while pleading various grounds, including:-

(2.) The petitioner herein has given the factual matrix of the matter as follows:-

(3.) The contention on behalf of the petitioner by his ld. counsel is that the acts and omissions referred to in the complaint were related with the discharge of duties by the petitioner herein as a Principal of Boys Higher Secondary School, Baramulla, in the year 2010-2011. The commencement of the proceedings in the form of complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattan, in March, 2014, was barred by limitation and actuated with mala fides. The respondent No.4 had been arrested in a case FIR No.52/2008 P/S Kreeri related with his conduct, unbecoming of a public servant. He had been working in observance in Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Baramulla, under the orders of higher authorities and had been facing trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla. The higher authorities, according to him, had already instructed his predecessor to severe the populous trees in June, 2009 but no action had been taken thereon by the officers at the helm of affairs. A case was requested to be registered against the respondent No.4 under the communication referred in the petition to the concerned Police Station but no proper action was taken though recovery of severed timber was made. A departmental enquiry was also going on against the respondent No.4. The timber referred in the complaint and the petition, according to him, had been properly auctioned and the highest bidder allowed to lift the same for an amount also referred in the petition. A complaint, according to him, had also been filed before the higher authorities by respondent No.4 which was proved to be baseless. Some official communications have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate the argument including the finding recorded by the enquiry officer who figures as accused No.2 in the complaint filed by respondent No.4.