RAMASHANKAR PRASAD VERMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 10-12-2008 passed by Shri S. K. Upadhyay, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 1043 of 2008 by which the Complaint Petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the petitioner Ramashankar Prasad Verma had filed a complaint against the Opposite Party No. 2 before the C.J.M., Ranchi alleging, inter alia, that he was posted as Deputy Secretary at the time of alleged occurrence and presently he was Joint Secretary in the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, Ranchi whereas the Opposite Party No. 2 was posted on a senior post as Joint Secretary on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. on 13-7-2006 in Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha. THE complainant further narrated that the O. P. No. 2 Madan Mohan Mishra retired from the Vidhan Sabha Assembly on 31-1-2007. THE complainant was proceeded departmentally for certain charges to which the Opposite Party No. 2 was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the departmental proceeding and after completion of enquiry the latter submitted the enquiry report against the complainant on 13-7-2006. It was alleged that the opposite party being a public servant prepared the said enquiry report based upon incorrect facts and documents intending thereby to cause injury to the complainant-petitioner by giving reference to the Bill No. A-2 and A-3/2000-01 in relation to the pay of the complainant for the month of November, 2000 (15th November, 2006 to 30th November) as also for the month of December, 2000. THE said Bills were revised vide Pay Slip bearing memo No. 1514 dated 24-3-2003 issued by the Department of Finance by which the complainant- petitioner was allowed to draw his pay and allowances after deducting the amount, that was already drawn by him. However, the O. P. No. 2 alleged against the petitioner-complainant in the finding of his enquiry report that the complainant had withdrawn the allowances on the fabricated and twisted facts. THE petitioner however explained in his complaint petition that the Finance Department had authorized him to withdraw the secretariat allowance, transport allowance and family planning allowance as mentioned in the pay slips. It was requested in the Complaint Petition to summon the O. P. No. 2 as an accused so as to put him on trial for the alleged offence under Sections 167/418/463/ 464/467/468/469/471 and 477A, I.P.C.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Piprawall, learned Counsel appearing for the O. P. No. 2.