TANUJA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 8-12-2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 93/1999, whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that the opposite party No. 2, who is complainant in complaint Case No. 93/1999, filed the aforesaid complaint case against the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner was working as Incharge Head Mistress, Indira Gandhi Girls School and in that capacity she invited tenders for sale of Ambassador Station Wagon car bearing registration No. BHM 8800 and the same was published in Daily Newspaper" Hindustan" on 25-11 -1995. The opposite party No. 2 complainant also filed his tender along with a Bank Draft of Rs. 2000/-. In the said tender three other persons had also participated and they had also deposited security money of Rs. 2000/-. It is stated that petitioner had not returned the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2000/-. to the complainant opposite party No. 2 till date and a legal notice to that effect was sent to the petitioner and complainant opposite party No. 2 also met her whereupon she told the complainant opposite party No. 2 that since a legal notice has been served so he may take back the money in Court itself, whereas she has returned the security money of others. It is further alleged that petitioner-accused, being in connivance with one Nagendra Jain, sold the car to Nagendra Jain, who happens to be stationery supplier of the school. The complainant opposite party No. 2 asked her to again bid or invite tender for the sale of vehicle but she refused because she was in connivance with aforesaid Nagendra Jain. Hence a case under Section 420 IPC is made out.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused submitted that the complaint petition being Complaint Case No. 93/1999 has been filed with a view to malign the petitioner and there is no truth in the allegation so made. It is further submitted that the draft for Rs. 2000/-. was deposited in the name of Principal of the said school and the entire transaction was done by the petitioner in the capacity of the Principal of the aforesaid school and, therefore, she did her duty in due discharge of her official duty and, therefore, she is entitled to get protection under Section 197 Cr. P. C. and, therefore, order taking cognizance is not legal in the eye of law. It is further submitted that she was Incharge Head Mistress and as per order of higher authority tender was invited and there were other members of the committee such as Jail Superintendent. District Transport Authority and mem bers of the tenders committee and in their presence tenders were opened and it was allotted to the highest bidder and the persons whose tenders were not accepted were asked to take back the security money but this tenderer did not receive security money with oblique motive and further that police after investigation submitted final form and as such, no case is made out against the petitioner.