AISHNA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the private opposite parties.

(2.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 26.6.2009 passed by Shri A.K. Tiwary, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint case No. C -1 -1070 of 2009, whereby, in the complaint case filed by the petitioner alleging certain acts of omissions and commissions against the accused persons, the court below after recording the statement of the complainant on S.A. and after examining the witnesses adduced on behalf of the complainant, found that there was no reasonable ground for proceeding against the accused persons and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the complaint petition, her statement recorded on S. A., and the evidence adduced in the Court below during enquiry, the offence is clearly made out against the accused persons, but the Court below, taking into consideration the facts that the FIR had been lodged against the complainant for embezzlement of Rs.38 lakhs and after her removal from service on 22.7.2008 after a domestic enquiry, the complainant has filed the complaint petition after undue delay, as also taking into consideration the fact that the complainant had noticed the financial irregularities committed by the accused persons for about 15 months in the Department and she did not take any action and only when she was removed from the service after domestic enquiry the present complaint petition has been filed, the Court below dismissed the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal in as much as, the Court below though has found that the allegation has been supported by the complainant in her S.A. as also by the witnesses examined by her during enquiry, but the Court was swayed away by irrelevant considerations and dismissed the complaint. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Rajeev Sawhney and Anr., reported in 2012 (1) Cr. R. 181 S.C. as also of this Court in Mahendra Saw @ Mahandra Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in 2006 (1) East Cr C 374 (Jhr), in support of his contention that if the allegation made in the complaint, supported by the complainant in S.A. as also by the witnesses examined during enquiry made out the offence, the Magistrate was wrong in dismissing the complaint petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly, submitted that the impugned order, passed by the Court below, is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 2012 (1) JLJR 206 (SC) wherein, upon placing reliance on Bhajan Lals case (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the similar circumstances, has quashed the criminal proceeding. Learned counsel accordingly reiterated that the criminal case has been maliciously lodged against the opposite parties for wreaking vengeance against them by the complainant, against whom they had earlier filed a criminal case and upon domestic enquiry, she had been removed from service. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction and the case is fit to be dismissed. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the private opposite parties. It is manifestly clear from the material on record that the case was earlier filed for the financial irregularities against the complainant by the accused persons on 2.8.2007 and though the complainant has stated that the financial irregularities were actually been committed by the accused persons, but the complainant did not take any action for quite a long time while she was in service. Further, it appears that the acts of omissions and commissions were allegedly committed in the year 2007 itself, but the complaint petition has been filed belatedly on 22.4.2009 by the complainant and that too, when the complainant was removed from service after domestic enquiry. It manifestly appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner has filed the complaint petition only for wreaking vengeance against the accused persons with mala fide and ulterior motive to satisfy her personal grudge. In my considered view, the present case is fully covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's Case (supra) and Deo Lakhan Paswan's Case (supra). 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dismissing the complaint petition cannot be interfered with and there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, I find no merit in this revision application and the same is, hereby, dismissed.