AJIT KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Dhanbad, in C.P. No. 970 of 2009, whereby the application filed for discharge by the petitioner was rejected by the Court below.

(2.) The petitioner has been made accused in the Complaint Case filed by opposite party No. 2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 970 of 2009. In the said complaint case it is alleged that the petitioner Ajit Kumar Singh, who is the Block Co-operative Extension Officer-cum-Incharge of the Kolakusma Panchayat, had falsely implicated the husband of the complainant in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 588 of 2007. It is further stated that an application was filed by the complainant under the Right to Information Act for getting information about the false implication of her husband, due to which, it is alleged that the petitioner, on 29.5.2009 abused the complainant, her son and nephew, who belonged to scheduled caste, in filthy languages taking the name of their caste, assaulted her and demanded levy of Rs. 50.000/- for exonerating her husband from the criminal case. Accordingly, the complaint petition was filed for the alleged offences u/ss. 323, 504, 341, 386, 384 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The complainant's statement was recorded on solemn affirmation and the witnesses were examined at the enquiry stage, on the basis of which prima facie offence was found against the petitioner and the process was issued against him. Subsequently, the petitioner filed application for discharge, which was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order holding that, in that view of the allegations against the petitioner, there was sufficient material to frame charge u/s. 341, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(x) and (xi) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is apparent from the impugned order that no prima facie offence was found against the petitioner for the offence u/ss. 384 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only due to wreaking vengeance on the petitioner and due to personal grudge as he is the informant in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 588 of 2007 in which there is serious charge of defalcation of Govt. fund against the husband of the complainant and only in order to take revenge from the petitioner the said complaint petition has been falsely instituted against the petitioner. It is submitted that in the said Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 588 of 2007 the police has filed charge-sheet after investigation against the husband of the complainant for the offence u/ss. 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance has also been taken by the Court concerned. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.