Maya Shankar Singh & Another vs State Of U.P. & Another
2012 Latest Caselaw 1798 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 200 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- Maya Shankar Singh & Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Sriprakash Dwivedi
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,V.P.S.Kushwaha
 

 
Hon'ble Surendra Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A.

The revisionist Sri Maya Shankar Singh, who was Forest Circle Officer posted at Check post Lalganj, District Mirzapur and one Triveni have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Complaint Case No. 1233 of 2006-Tunnu Rai Vs. Maya Shankar Singh and another, relating to Police Station Lalganj, District Mirzapur, by which the revisionists were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. Thus, the summoning order passed against the Forest Circle Officer and another under Sections 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. is under challenge in this revision.

The facts of the case are that one Tunnu Rai, who is respondent No. 2 herein, filed the aforesaid complaint with the allegations that he (complainant Tunnu Rai) was posted as Gate man on daily wage basis to the Check-Post Lalganj, District Mirzapur. He was appointed on the said post on 27.11.1981 by order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Mirzapur. During service, he was transferred to various forest check-posts. He filed Writ Petition No. 27225 of 1995 claiming his regularization. In June, 1999, a seniority list was published by the Forest Department in which his name was placed at serial No. 5. His claim was rejected by the concerned Divisional Forest Officer. At that time, his main grievance was that the persons who were engaged subsequent to him and who were much junior to him, had been regularized. Thus, the respondent no. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 52230 of 2003 in this Court wherein this Court directed to the officers of the Forest Department to continue the respondent no. 2 in service and pay his salary. The stand taken in this matter by the respondent no. 2 was that there was sanctioned post of Gate-man at the relevant time and the respondent no. 2, as a matter of fact, was appointed as Gate-man under Uttar Pradesh Forest Manual, 1985. The respondent no. 2 was transferred to Madhian Range where he did not join. When the Forest Department called his explanation, the respondent no. 2 submitted that the said order dated 10.4.2006 was not communicated to him. Subsequently, he continued to work as Gate-man at Lalganj Check Post from 7.4.2006 to 12.6.2008, the period during which the offence is said to have been committed.

The respondent no. 2 also filed one Contempt Petition No. 2097 of 2003 for non compliance of the order dated 28.9.2004. It may also be mentioned here that the respondent no. 2 who is employee of the said Forest Department, filed several petitions including contempt petitions in this Court. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27229 of 1995-Munnu Rai Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, District Mirzapur and others, an interim order dated 25.9.1995 was passed by this Court directing that if the petitioner is functioning as Gate-man, his services shall not be terminated pending disposal of the said writ petition. The respondent no. 2 filed another Writ Petition No. 52238 of 2003-Tunnu Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary (Forest), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and others, in which an interim order dated 25.11.2003 was passed by this Court directing that if the petitioner is working, he will continue to be paid the wages of a daily wage employee and same will not be withheld.

The respondent No. 2 filed another Contempt Petition No. 177 of 2005-Tunnu Rai Vs. Smt. Surjit Kaul Bandhu, Principal Secretary, (Forest), Govt. of U.P., Lucknow and others, in which this Court vide order dated 8.5.2006 directed issuance of notice to the respondents including the revisionist Maya Shankar Singh, Forest Circle Officer, Mirzapur who was made party as respondent no. 6 in the contempt petition.

The respondent no. 2 Tunnu Rai also filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40130 of 2009-Tunnu Rai Vs. State of U.P. and others, in which this Court vide order dated 11.11.2009 directed the Forest Department to consider the case of the respondent no. 2 afresh for regularization, in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 and in light of the observations made therein.

The mention of background is very necessary for the purpose of annoyance against the present revisionist who is responsible officer of the Forest Department. When such position was there between the parties, the respondent no. 2 Tunnu Rai, an employee of the Forest Department filed a complaint against the revisionists alleging therein that on 3.6.2006 around 4.00 P.M. the revisionist No. 1, Forest Circle Officer, Lalganj along with respondent no. 2 and others came at the Forest Check-Post Lalganj in a Government vehicle having blue light and asked the reason for filing contempt petition in this Court. The revisionist no. 2 informed the complainant that the complainant had been transferred to some other place when the complainant referred the aforesaid writ petitions and interim orders passed. It is further alleged in the complaint that due to enmity and aforesaid litigations including contempt petitions in the High Court, the revisionists abused the complainant, threw the box containing relevant papers and other articles out of the room and also threatened to kill him. Two witnesses Hafiz and Gorakhnath are said to have seen the incident. The complainant gave information to the Police Station Lalganj about the incident and also sent a complaint to the concerned Station House Officer by registered post on 6.6.2006. When his complaint was not lodged at the police station, he sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur vide registered letter on 20.8.2006. These are the allegations made by the employee against the officers of the Forest Department who are revisionists herein.

The complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the revisionists were summoned by the aforesaid impugned order to face the trial under the aforesaid offences. It appears from the statement of the witness Hafiz PW-1 recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that he was in the knowledge of all the litigations pending between the parties and repeated the said litigations and stated that on filing of contempt petition by the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 2 was transferred by the revisionist no. 1. Hafiz PW-1 has added some new facts and developed the prosecution story by saying that after abusing the complainant, entered into his room and threw the box containing articles. Another witness Fariduddin was examined as PW-2 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. though he was not named in the complaint.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that the respondent no. 2 (complainant) being an employee of the Forest Department was annoyed with the respondent no. 1 and he filed several petitions in this Court including contempt petitions and since his service was not regularized, the false complaint was filed with false allegations against the revisionists. The duty of the respondent no. 1 was to go forest check-post and to ensure that the concerned employees of the Department were present and performing their duty or not.

The last submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that on account of enmity, false complaint was filed against the revisionists, which has no substance. The allegations made in the complaint are quite improbable and unnatural and the same have been made with an ulterior motive to get favourable order regarding regularization of service and other benefits. From the allegations made in the complaint, no prima facie case is made out against the revisionists.

In the case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1947, the Hon'ble Supreme court held that where allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

In Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law can not be set in to motion as a matter of course. .....The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused.

In Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha, 1993 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 499, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. There lies responsibility and duty on the Magistracy to find whether the concerned accused should be legally responsible for the offence charged for. Only on satisfying that the law casts liability or creates offence against the juristic person or the persons impleaded then only process would be issued. At that stage the court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance.

In the case of G. Sagar Suri and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 636, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused, it is a serious matter.

The impugned order is perverse and not based on material on record. From the allegations made in the complaint, there appears to be no sufficient evidence against the revisionists to face the trial under Sections 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. In absence of prima facie case, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Complaint Case No. 1233 of 2006-Tunnu Rai Vs. Maya Shankar Singh and another is quashed. The revision is accordingly allowed.

Order Date :- 16.5.2012

Rmk.