Shiv Lakhan vs State Of U.P. & Another
2015 Latest Caselaw 4361 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

 Reserved/AFR
 

 
Court No. 13
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2976 of 2013
 
Revisionist :- Shiv Lakhan
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Birendra Singh, Bir Bhan Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ramesh Chandra Gupta-Ii
 

 
Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan,J.

The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist Shiv Lakhan against the judgement and order dated 17.9.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Special Trial No. 2 of 2012 arising out of Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2012 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the complaint under section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") filed against opposite party No. 2 Ram Prasad under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The brief facts of the case are that an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant, the revisionist herein, on 10.5.2012 for directing the Station House Officer of Police Station Khakhreru, district Fatehpur to register and investigate the case, with the allegations that he applied for electric connection for the purpose of running a tubewell. After getting all the formalities completed, line order was passed on 19.2.2010. In compliance thereof, electric connection was given to the complainant in October, 2011. However, the department has failed to issue pass book in spite of repeated request and several reminders. On 25.3.2010, Shri Ram Prasad, Junior Engineer, Kishanpur, opposite party No. 2 approached the complainant and demanded Rs. 5,000/- for submitting the connection report.

However, the said application of the complainant moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was treated as complaint and the statement of the complainant was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C.

In his statement the complainant has stated that an electric connection of 10 HP has been installed and he was running the tubewell since October, 2011 and till date (17.9.2012) he had not paid any electricity dues. The Junior Engineer, Shri Ram Prasad demanded Rs. 5,000/- as bribe for submitting connection report, but no transaction was done and no body was present at the spot at that time.

On an specific querry by the Court, the complainant could not reply since when Ram Prasad was posted in the capacity of Junior Engineer.

In his statement, the complainant has admitted that at present Gulab Chandra Singh is posted as Junior Engineer and he has not made any request to him for submitting report regarding installation of connection or for issuance of pass book.

The learned Special Judge while rejecting the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. has concluded that from the sole statement of the complainant, fact of demand of bribe appears to be a reason for saving himself from the liability of paying electricity dues and theft and no case under the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against opposite party No. 2 for summoning and rejected the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. in a very arbitrary and illegal manner without following the procedure.

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not conducted any enquiry or investigation in the matter.

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate supported the order of the learned Sessions Judge and argued that from the application under under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was later on treated as complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C., it could not be established that there is prima facie sufficient ground to proceed against the opposite party No. 2 rather it is a case of theft of electricity and non-payment of electricity dues by the complainant and the complainant-revisionist in order to avoid the payment adopted this tactics.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Food Limited and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749, cautioned the courts below against casual manner of taking cognizance of cases and held as under:

"Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegation in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. 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 complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrae is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

In the case of Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has come down heavily on the vindictive practice of the parties, who file the private complant as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly and cautioned the Magistracy to take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process. The Court held thus:

" 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 taken all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complainant 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. The Supreme Court is of the view that when the criminal proceedings is found to have been initiated with mala fide/malign for wrecking vengeance or to cause harm or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbably, is a clear case of abuse of process of the Court.

In this case, I find that the complainant-revisionist had initially moved the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration and investigation of the case against Shri Ram Prasad, Junior Engineer on 10.5.2012 for the incident which took place on 25.3.2012 in respect of demand of money by the Junior Engineer, which was, however, treated as complaint. In his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. the complainant-revisionist admitted that an electric connection of 10 HP has been installed and he is running the tubewell since October, 2011 and till date (17.9.2012 when the statement of the complainant was recorded ), he has not paid a single paise as electricity bill. He further admitted that when the demand was made no body was present at the place and no money was given to the concerned Junior Engineer.

Learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. as he found that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the opposite party. From the statement of the complainant-revisionist, learned Sessions Judge was fully satisfied that it was a vexatious complaint and it has been made only to avoid payment of electricity bill and to put pressure on the concerned Junior Engineer. Moreover, the complainant-revisionist had not produced any witnesses to support his case under section 202 Cr.P.C. It is admitted fact that the revisionist had neither paid the charges of consumed electricity nor made any efforts to approach the superior authority for the purpose of getting the bill prepared. In the garb of the above mentioned allegations which cannot hunt the common and prudent mind of a man, the revisionist has designed to avoid the payment of consumed electricity charages.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 17.9.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. The revision is accordingly dismissed.

Dated: 20.11.2015

Ishrat