Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Chandra vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 12 September, 2017
Bench: Harsh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2762 of 2011
Revisionist :- Rajesh Chandra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- K.D. Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Santosh Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Case called out. No one present for opposite party no.2.
Heard Sri K.D. Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The revision has been filed against the order dated 24.6.2011 passed by C.J.M., Moradabad in Case No.13623/9 of 2010, under sections 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Civil Line, District Moradabad, dismissing the application of the revisionist under section 245(2) Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist was Executive Engineer of P.W.D., Moradabad and opposite party no.2 was Class IV Employee, working on the post of Neel Chitrakar; that the opposite party no.2 was asking the revisionists for giving him the charge of Lab T.N.P. and when the revisionist refused to appoint him as Lab T.N.P., which is considered to be a lucrative post, the opposite party no.2 has lodged a false F.I.R. against him through application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; that in the F.I.R. it was stated that the revisionist was not giving charge to him, regarding which complaints were made by him on 30.1.2010 to the Chief Minister and Superior Officers and in connection with taking charge on 11.5.2010, when he went to meet the revisionist in his office alongwith Amar Singh and Devesh Kumar Bhatnagar, the revisionist allegedly abused him with caste name and threatened him of life; that upon investigation final report was submitted against which protest petition was filed by opposite party no.2, which was treated as complaint upon which the revisionist was summoned for the offences under sections 504 and 506 IPC; that the summoning order dated 17.2.2011 passed by the Magistrate was sought to be quashed by the revisionist through application 482 Cr.P.C. No.8224 of 2011, which was disposed of with liberty to revisionist to move application under section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. before the trial court; that the application under section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. moved by revisionist has been rejected by the learned Magistrate by impugned order without considering the fact that there are material contradictions in the statements of complainant, the opposite party no.2 and his witnesses; that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and by allowing the revision, the revisionist is liable to be discharged.
Per contra, learned AGA supported the impugned order.
Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that as per averments made in F.I.R., despite repeated requests made by opposite party no.2, the revisionist was not giving him charge. It has not been made clear that since he was working on the post of Neel Chitrakar and is not alleged to have been transferred at some other post, charge of which post was being requested by him again and again. It is also noteworthy that as per averments made in F.I.R. on 11.5.2010, he went to the office of revisionist for taking charge along with Amar Singh and Devesh Kumar Bhatnagar as well as an Agent, which does not appear natural in ordinary course as a class IV employee of the office may not be supposed to meet his Boss/Superior Officer for giving him charge of whatever post, along with several persons. As per final report submitted by the Investigating Officer, the above eye witnesses of the incident Amar Singh and Devesh Kumar Bhatnagar, did not support the prosecution case and so final report was submitted. The protest petition filed by opposite party no.2 against the final report was treated as complaint and in support of his complaint, the complainant opposite party no.2 examined himself under section 200 Cr.P.C. and Amar Singh and Zahid under section 202 Cr.P.C. and did not produce Devesh Kumar Bhatnagar. It is pertinent to mention that in his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant opposite party no.2 has improved his statement by saying that at the time of incident Amar Singh, Waseem, Irshad and Devesh Kumar Bhatnagar were accompanying him and names of Waseem and Irshad were introduced by way of development. It is pertinent to mention that neither any reason has been assigned by the opposite party no.2 as to why the names of Waseem and Irshad were not mentioned in application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or in protest petition and were mentioned for the first time in his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. nor any reason has been assigned for not producing Waseem and Irshad the alleged eye witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C. It is also noteworthy that in the protest petition/complaint or his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C., the opposite party no.2 has not made any whisper about alleged loss of Rs.5 lacs to the revisionist [whereas in application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., it has been specifically stated that the revisionist told him that he had to pay Rs.5 lacs to get the inquiry (on complaint of opposite party no.2) dropped], however, his witness Amar Singh is smarter than him, who has stated that the revisionist at the time of abusing the opposite party no.2 was saying that on account of opposite party no.2 he has suffered a loss of Rs.5 lacs.
In view of above improvements and contradictions in the statements of complainant and his witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and for non production of alleged eye witnesses Devesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Waseem and Irshad which were added by way of improvement in his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C., I find that the complainant has failed to produce any reliable prima facie evidence, which if remain controverted may result in conviction of the revisionist.
In view of above material on record, I find force in the contentions made by revisionist that the opposite party no.2 was putting pressure on him for giving him charge of Lab T.N.P., which is considered to be lucrative post and since the revisionist did not transfer him on above post, he has lodged a F.I.R. through application under sction 156(3) Cr.P.C. with false allegations of offences under sections 504 and 506 IPC, which are ornamental in nature and it appears that no such incident ever taken place.
In view of the discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned Magistrate has acted wrongly in rejecting the discharge application merely for the reason that evidence of complainant has not been recorded under section 244 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate ought to have allowed application of revisionist under section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. and discharge him for the offences levelled against him. The revision is liable to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
The revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.The matter is remitted back to the Magistrate for afresh disposal of application under section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. in view of the observations made in the body of judgment as well as in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties expeditiously and if possible within six months from the date of production of order before it.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Let a copy of order be sent to court below for taking necessary action.
Order Date :- 12.9.2017
Tamang
