AMIT SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

(2.) Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Binod Jha, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 and Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

(3.) This petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioners including the First Information Report in connection with Ghatshila P.S.Case No.59/2013, arising out of Complaint Case No.C/1 86/2013, corresponding to G.R.Case No.391/2013. Consequently the petitioners challenged the cognizance order dtd. 13/11/2019 by way of filing I.A. No.3846/2021 which was allowed by this Court by order dtd. 9/8/2021. Thus, the cognizance order dtd. 13/11/2019 is also under challenge in this petition. The complaint was filed stating therein that, the prosecution case in brief is that on Pradeep Kumar Das, Ex.Senior Technician having T.N.No.32114 employee of S.E. Railway, Kharagpur made a complaint before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila stating therein that he remained on medical leave and was under treatment of one Dr. Anukaran Purty after taking necessary leave from the concerned department of S.E.Railway, Kharagpur but the petitioner No.1 to 3 all collusively suppressed the letter of the complainant/informant and issued letter to the Dr. Anukaran Purty that he cannot treat him, as the complainant is permanent service man of the S.E.Railway unless prior permission and information to the concerned authority under the provisions of Railway Establishment were given. Further he stated in his complaint that Dr. Anukaran Purty became aggrieved and dissatisfied constituted a Medical Board for the treatment of the complainant and forwarded the report of the Board to the accused/petitioners. The complainant also forwarded his application for extension of leave of being unfit dtd. 17/8/2012 against on 20/8/2012 duly received on 25/8/2012 but to defame the said Doctor. The accused no.1 to 4 illegally issued letter to the Doctor on 11/10/2012 vide office letter no.EC/20/Danda/PKD/32/5793. Further the complainant disclosed that the accused petitioners somehow managed to get certificate of fitness of the complainants from Railway Doctor on 11/2/2013 to 28/2/2013 and later on extended up to 2/3/2013 and allowed him to do normal duty since 5/3/2013. Further the complainant alleged that the accused petitioners manipulated in the service record of the complainant shown a lady Manju Das as his wife for ulterior motive to cheat, defame an to take extortion money of Rs.2.00 lacs from the complainant. Upon which the complainant has been sent to the concerned police Station for its investigation under 156(3) of Cr.P.C.