DR. ANUPAM BHARGAVA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this misc. petition, the petitioner complainant Dr. Anupam Bhargava has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 29.4.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 City (South) Udaipur in Complaint Case No. 18/2015 whereby the complaint preferred by the petitioner against the private respondents herein was rejected so also the order dated 7.11.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (WAC), Udaipur in Revision No. 43/2016 whereby the Revisional Court affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Facts in brief:-

(2.) The petitioner herein was posted as an Advisor in the Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth University at the relevant point of time. Disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner by the University. He challenged the same by filing a writ petition in this Court. It appears that during pendency of the litigation including the writ petition and contempt petition certain documents were filed on behalf of University in order to counter the allegations made by the petitioner in his pleadings. Along with the submissions made on behalf of University, copy of an attendance register was annexed which as per the petitioner was a forged and fabricated document. The petitioner thereupon filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1 (south) Udaipur against the respondents herein respectively being the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University alleging inter alia that he had been allowed to join duty under the interim order dated 7.9.2010 passed by Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petition No. 5652/2005. As per the petitioner, he was regularly attending his duties. However, the respondents accused intentionally acted in a fraudulent manner and opened an exclusive separate attendance register in the petitioner's name in which, his joining was also recorded. The petitioner was intentionally not allowed to mark his official attendance in the regular attendance register maintained for all the other employees and instead, he was made to sign the separate registered opened with a fraudulent intention. It was alleged in the complaint that this fraudulent action of the respondents was aimed at frustrating the petitioner's cases pending before this Court and to cause him wrongful loss. The petitioner filed a contempt petition in the Rajasthan High Court. Notice of the contempt petition was issued to the respondents who intentionally and fradulently furnished copy of the regularly maintained attendance register of employees in which the petitioner's attendance was not marked so as to portray that he did not rejoin duty in pursuance of the interim stay passed in his favour by the Rajasthan High Court. The petitioner further alleged that respondents had on many occasions admitted that his signatures were taken in a separate register but intentionally in the proceedingsbefore this Court, they produced the register in which petitioner's attendance was not marked and thereby fraud was played with the petitioner complainant as well as this Court. The petitioner prayed that the complaint be forwarded to police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. because the complaint lodged by the petitioner with the police with these very allegations did not meet any response whatsoever. The matter was proceeded as a private complaint. The petitioner's statement was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 17.11.2014 and then the complaint was forwarded to the police for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. It is relevant to mention here that while deposing u/s. 200 Cr.P.C ., the petitioner presented copies of certain orders passed in his writ petition filed before this Court as well as copies of enquiry reports etc. but no copy of any forged or fabricated attendance registered opened (maintained exclusively for the petitioner) was presented on record. During the course of the proceedings of the complaint and the enquiry, no endeavour was made by the petitioner so as to present or get summoned the so-called forged attendance register/ the register exclusively opened for him by the respondents. The trial court, after considering the entire material presented by the petitioner complainant along with complaint and the material collected by the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. proceeded to pass a detailed order on 29.9.2015 holding that the so called forged register which formed foundation of the petitioner's case was never presented in the Court so as to substantiate the allegations levelled in the complaint. The trial Court further held that the case set up by the petitioner complainant that he rejoined duties in furtherance of the stay order passed by this Court and that his attendance was marked in a separate register was also not supported by any evidence including the CCTV video footage. Further enquiry was directed to be conducted by an independent officer which was held and again no material was forthcoming so as to support the complainant's allegations. The University apprised the enquiry officer that the regularly maintained attendance register in which the petitioner's absence is reflected had been presented in the High Court and that no other register was ever opened or maintained to exclusively mark the petitioner's attendance. The enquiry officer, further concluded that the petitioner's allegation regarding he having regularly attended the University was not substantiated by the Biometric entry data and the C.C.T.V. footage. The enquiry officer found conclusively that only one register was maintained at the University for marking attendance of all the employees and officials and the petitioner never marked his presence therein. After this Court had stayed the order whereby the petitioner's services were terminated, the University provided a sitting space to the complainant but he did not turn up for joining. Based on all this conclusive material collected during enquiry proceedings, the learned Judicial Magistrate proceeded to pass a detailed final order dated 29.4.2016 and rejected the complaint preferred by the petitioner holding that no cogent and plausible evidence was given by the petitioner nor any such evidence was forthcoming during the enquiry conducted by the police so as to justify further proceedings on the complaint submitted by the petitioner. The complaint was rejected as being meritless. The petitioner did not rest satisfied with the rejection of his complaint by the learned Magistrate vide the detailed order dated 29.4.2016 and proceeded to file a revision which too came to be dismissed by order dated 7.11.2016. Being aggrieved of these two orders, the petitioner complainant has approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition.

(3.) I have heard the complainant petitioner Dr. Anupam Bhargava appearing in person and have perused the impugned orders and the entire record.