RAMSWROOP SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 30/3/2021 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dudu, district Jaipur in criminal case no.201/2021 whereby cognizance under Ss. 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC has been taken against the petitioner as well as for quashing the FIR no.329 dtd. 27/8/2021 registered at Police Station Dudu, district Jaipur Rural under the aforesaid offences.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Driver in the office of Sub-divisional Officer, Dudu, Jaipur on 10/12/2007 on daily wages basis. He submitted that vide verbal order dtd. 7/5/2015, his services were terminated which, being in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity of' the Act of 1947, was set aside by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur in LCR no.156/2017 (old no.24/2016) vide its award dtd. 7/2/2020 and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with its continuity and 50% of the back wages from the date of termination of his services. He stated that the aforesaid award was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondents therein by way of SBCWP No. 13432/2020. Learned counsel submitted that when he filed a petition under Sec. 29 of the Act of 1947 for taking action against the District Collector as well as SDO, Jaipur for breach of the award in his favour, to victimise and harass him; an FIR came to be registered against him levelling false allegation of obtaining services as contractual Driver on 11/1/2012 claiming himself to be an ex-service man. Learned counsel contended that during course of the investigation, nothing incriminating was found against him; but, charge sheet came to be filed against him under Ss. 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC upon which, learned trial Court has taken cognizance against him vide order impugned dtd. 30/3/2021.

(3.) Learned counsel submitted that the order dtd. 30/3/2021 is non-speaking and does not assign any reason for taking cognizance. He argued that from the statements of the prosecution witnesses as well as the other material collected by the investigating agency in the shape of documents, no offence as alleged is made out against him. He, therefore, prayed that the criminal misc. petition be allowed.