SHIVENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by way of filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as initiated against him including order dated 5.12.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur at Deoghar in PCR No. 387/2007 (Tr. No. 1211/2008) whereby, the learned court -below has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(i) and 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offence as alleged against him. However, he has been falsely implicated in this case only with a view to cause harassment. It is further submitted that petitioner is a Government Official. In fact, there was a complaint received against the opposite party No. 2 (original complainant) and departmental actions were also initiated on the ground of his behavior and therefore, as a counter attack, the impugned complaint has been filed against this petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring the documents annexed to this petition, pointed out that the date of alleged incident is 12.8.2007 whereas, the date of complaint is 26.9.2007. Therefore, the impugned complaint has been filed after the delay of 44 days from the date of the alleged occurrence only with a view to harass the present petitioner, who is a Government Official and has acted in good faith in the interest of administration. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the present petitioner, being a Government Official, cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction as required under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner being Government officer is having protection under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that in the instant case no prior sanction as required under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been obtained and therefore, on this ground, order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring various annexures, pointed out that present petitioner received complaint against the informant/complainant by the girls of Kasturba Gandhi Residential School Madhupur. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred the show -cause notice and the explanation given by the complainant and a departmental proceeding initiated against the opposite party No. 2 (original complainant). It is further submitted that opposite party No. 2 was terminated from services vide order dated 21.2.2008 after holding regular departmental inquiry.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party -complainant, while referring paragraph No. 8 of the complaint, submitted that complainant has given explanation and tried to justify the delay, which has been caused in institution of the complaint. It is submitted that the complainant initially approached the authorities for ventilation of his grievances. Since no positive response has been given by the authorities, he had no option but to approach the court by filing the impugned complaint. Learned counsel for the opposite party -complainant has referred the statement given by one Meera Toppo, who was a Teacher of the school, wherein she has stated that there is no such antecedent ever reported against the complainant. It is further submitted that the act of the present petitioner cannot be treated as part of official discharge of duty and therefore, protective umbrella as enumerated in Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not be available to the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code which relates to act done in "Good Faith". It is lastly submitted that the case of the present petitioner has no merit and deserves to be rejected.