S. VENKATRAMAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vishal Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No.1497/2016 including the order dtd. 1/3/2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, whereby, cognizance has been taken under Ss. 341, 348 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.

(3.) The complaint case has been filed on 27/6/2016 by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that he joined in Tinplate Co India Ltd (TCIL) as a Junior Administrative Trainee and worked since then in the said company and at the time of filing complaint posted as Executive Officer at work office of the said company reporting to the present petitioner no. 1. It has further been alleged that he had played a very important role and had been receiving assignment directly from the Managing Director of the Company and reporting to him over the happenings causing loss to the petitioner no. 1, who threatened the O.P. No.2. On 23/3/2016, petitioner no. 1 held a meeting directing all concerned officers to re-check the vendors bill of the period 2015-2016 so that any mistake detected in the bill may be corrected. After the meeting when O.P. No.2 came to his office and asked office staff to give vendor's bill file for re-checking. The O.P No.2 was told by office staff that petitioner no. 1-Mr. S. Venkatraman has taken away the bills file. The petitioner no. 1-Mr. S. Venkatraman without knowledge of the O.P No.2 get recheck and verified 23 bills of vendor M/s Shree Interiors and one bill of M/s Ramprakash Fabricators and Contractors by Mr. Sailesh Singh. This fact indicates that petitioner no. 1 how far biased with the O.P No.2. The O.P. No.2 came to know that aforesaid bills had earlier been forwarded and counter signed by him. In scrutiny, it was detected that there was calculation mistakes in submitting bills as the calculation was made in square inch instead of square ft. this was the mistakes of the said contractors which could not be detected by O.P No.2 earlier while counter signing and forwarding the bills as there was no copy of purchase order attached with the bill nor there was any circular order for direction issued by the management petitioner no. 1 to attach copy of purchase order while submitting bills. O.P No.2 had no access to see purchase order and bill certification in SAP system. It was not in his memory or mind that purchase order was made in square ft., and not in square inch. Petitioner no. 1-Mr. S. Venkatraman is only the passing and sanctioning authority of the vendors' bills and on his direction the bill payment was to be made by account department after further scrutinization. The payment of 23 bills of vendor M/s Shree Interiors had already being made to the vendor on the basis of the passing of the bills and direction of petitioner no.1- Mr. S. Venkatraman. As such regarding wrong an excess payment of 23 bills to the vendor M/s Shree Interiors, the petitioner no. 1-Mr S. Venkatraman, Bill certifier in SAP system and the account department are only legally liable and responsible person. When this fact came to the knowledge of petitioner no. 1 he directly made contacts with the respective vendors and obtained revised and corrected bill from the vendors without observing formalities of receiving and filing bills. No entry of revised bills was made in centralize bill register maintained by works office. This shows that the petitioner no. 1 has got complicity and nexus with the vendors. The vendors are said to have admitted that it was their calculation mistakes and there was no hand of the complainant in calculation Mistakes being committed in the bills. The petitioner no.1- Mr. S. Venkatraman finding himself to be liable, responsible and legally accountable for wrong payment made to the vendor M/s Shree Interiors by the account department on the basis his order and direction. To cover up his negligence and the liability, responsibility and accountability and also falsely to implicate the O.P. No.2, informed the petitioner no. 3-Mr. Anjan Dasgupta Chief Vigilance, Tata Steel Limited. On 26/4/2016, at about 11 A.M., the O.P. No.2 was called on cell phone by petitioner no. 2 Mr. Harjit Singh to come to his office immediately. When O.P No.2 went to the chamber of petitioner no. 2-Mr. Harjit Singh he found petitioner no. 1 Mr. S. Venkatraman, petitioner no.2-Mr.Harjit Singh and accused no. 3-Mr. Anjan Dasgupta, Chief Vigilance of Tata Steel Limited along with other 3 unknown persons were present there in the chamber of petitioner no. 2 Mr. Harjit Singh. The petitioner no. 1 Mr. S. Venkatraman and the petitioner no. 2 Mr. Harjit Singh told the O.P. No.2 to answer the question of petitioner no. 3-Mr. Anjan Dasgupta. The petitioner no. 3 by exercising undue influence, coercion and threat obtained the signature and some writings of the complainant in question form on blank papers. All the three accused persons in collusion and complicity with each other by exercising undue influence and threat obtained the Bank account of the complainant and his wife. The complainant was also forcibly detained in the office of petitioner no. 2 for about three hours. On 27/4/2016, again the petitioner no. 2 Mr. Harjit Singh called the O.P. No.2 to his office when the O/P. No.2 went to the office of petitioner no. 2, the petitioner no. 3 Mr. Anjan Dasgupta brought the complainant O.P No.2 in library of TCIL where enquiry was made by petitioner no.3 Mr. Anjan Dasgupta and he forced to give details of bank account. The O.P. No.2 told that it was his personal account and then the petitioner no. 3 Anjan Dasgupta threatened and forced the O.P No.2 to give his bank details. Being influence by threat and coercion given by the petitioner no. 3 Mr. Anjan Dasgupta O.P No.2 gave the details of his bank account. It was pointed out by the O.P No.2 that loan was taken from the friends, society, relatives and parents. The loan return has also been shown in the account statement of the O.P.No.2. The petitioner no. 3 also made query in respect of the vendor's bill. The O.P No.2 told that he had counter signed over the bills but not made any recommendations to pass the bills. The complainant O.P.No.2 also told the vigilance people that the petitioner no. 3 is the passing and sanctioning authority of the vendor's bills and he also got facility and power to see purchase orders in SAP system whereas the O.P. No.2 had no power and facility to look purchase order in SAP. The O.P. No.2 also requested petitioner no. 3 to make query and enquiry from petitioner no.1- Mr. S. Venkatraman and from account department who may be sole liable and responsible for wrong passing and payment of the vendor bills. The petitioner no. 3 Mr. Anjan Dasgupta started to call the vendors and he pressurized the vendors to write something showing illegal gratifications against the complainant for falsely implicating the complainant in fabricated and concocted case. No document of any kind regarding payment of illegal gratification by any person was shown to the O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.2 was not aware of what kind of document have been fabricated and created by petitioner no. 1 against the O.P. No.2 from the vendors by exercising threat, coercion of being blacklisted and stop payment. The petitioner no. 3 accompanied three other unknown Vigilance persons made no enquiry and query from the petitioner no.1- Mr. S. Venkatraman and account department regarding passing and payment of wrong calculated bills submitted by M/s Shree Interiors in spite of his request made. It clearly indicates that the petitioner no. 3-Mr. Anajan Dasgupta is in collusion and conspiracy of petitioner no. 1 and 2 who appears to have managed petitioner no. 3-Mr. Anajan Dasgupta. The petitioner no. 3 had been simply called by petitioner no. 1-Mr S. Venkatraman only for the purpose to save and protect him from the liability and accountability of the wrong payment made and for the purpose of falsely implicating the OP.No.2 in a concocted case for tarnishing his image in a pre-planned manner. On 3/5/2016 at about 4 P.M. the petitioner no. 2-Mr. Harjit Singh called the O.P No.2 to come in his office immediately and when the O.P. No.2 entered into the cabin of petitioner no.2 he found petitioner nos. 1 and 2 along with some other officers of the company present there. Both the petitioner nos.1 and petitioner no.2 started threatening the O.P. No.2 and they were forcing the O.P. No.2 to give his resignation with immediate effect telling that Sr. Management team has taken decision to sack and not continue with the service. The O.P. No.2 wanted to know the reasons and demanded any document regarding complain and charges if made against the O.P. No.2 but both petitioner nos. 1 and 2 denied giving any document to the O.P. No.2 regarding charges whatsoever. The O.P. No.2 refused to give his resignation without any valid reason shown to him then petitioner nos. 1 and 2 abused the O.P. No.2 using unparliamentary languages and they told that they may dismiss O.P. No.2 with immediate effect or may terminate his services one month pre notice. The O.P. No.2 was illegally detained for more than two hours and not allowed to go outside from the office. In may ways, the O.P. No.2 was being humiliated and tortured by petitioner nos. 1 and 2. On 4/5/2016, when the O.P No.2 went to his office he found that his PC was blocked and Lotus-email was found disabled. The O.P. No.2 approached to the petitioner no.1 about the reason for blocking his PC and Lotus email without giving any prior information. The petitioner no. 1 gave no reasons and he abused the O.P.No.2 and dragged him out from his office telling that he will sack the O.P.No.2 immediately. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 started calling the vendors and tried to create and manufactured documents against the O.P.No.2 by giving threats and coercion to the vendors.