Bidhyut Chakraborty vs State & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4184 Del

          *           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                 Date of Order: September 9, 2010

                                     + Crl.MC No. 544/2009
%                                                                     09.09.2010
         Bidhyut Chakraborty                                  ...Petitioner

         Versus

         State & Ors.                                         ...Respondents

Counsels:

Mr. Deepak Bhattacharya and Mr. Rajesh Kumar for petitioner Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

ORAL

1. This criminal misc main petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been

preferred by the petitioner for quashing FIR No.76 of 2007 under Section

354,506,509 IPC lodged in police station Maurice Nagar, Delhi and the

proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The petitioner was working as an Honorary Director on deputation basis at

Gandhi Bhawan and the complainant was an employee there. The complainant

filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 354/506/509 IPC. After

completion of investigation chargesheet was filed before the Court. A perusal of

chargesheet would reveal that the investigating officer had made enquiries from

Crl. MC No.544/2009 Bidyut Chakraborty v State Page 1 Of 3 different staff members of Gandhi Bhawan and from tea vendors and other

witnesses available outside Gandhi Bhawan to find out the truth. No one

supported the complaint made by the complainant and under these

circumstances, SHO filed a report that from the investigation, alleged

misbehavior by the petitioner/accused towards complainant has not been

confirmed and no evidence has been found against the petitioner for his arrest.

However, keeping in view the complaint made by the complainant, the challan

was being filed to the court and if the court deems fit, it may issue summons to

the accused/petitioner.

3. Normally whenever after investigation if no evidence comes on record to

confirm commission of crime, a closure report is filed. However, in this case

instead of filing a closure report, a strange report was filed by the police that

though there was no evidence to confirm the incident, however, court may still

summon the accused/petitioner, if it considers appropriate.

4. An inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Committee of the University

concerning complaints of employees vis-à-vis director and perusal of inquiry

report would show that the director/petitioner in this case reached Gandhi

Bhawan after lunch hours on the day of alleged incident and found that all the

employees were missing. No one was there in the office. The inquiry committee

also came to conclusion that though the lunch hours were only half an hour but

the employees used to extend it to one hour. Although, courtesy demanded that

at least one of the employees should remain in Gandhi Bhawan, a public place,

to answer the queries of public but none of the employee used to be present and

Crl. MC No.544/2009 Bidyut Chakraborty v State Page 2 Of 3 when the petitioner found that all the employees were not there, he got enraged

and scolded the employees including the complainant and told them to sit outside

the office and gave verbal order not to come to office for one month. However,

two of the employees joined back the duties on 15th or 16th April whereas the

complainant came to office regularly and asked the director/petitioner to give

orders of not attending the office in writing.

5. The statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer also

shows that the director has scolded the complainant and the complainant was

saying 'sorry sir, sorry sir'.

6. In view of the fact that there was no evidence that the alleged incident had

taken place or the petitioner had threatened the complainant or molested her as

alleged, rather the sequence of events shows that the scolding had taken place

on the employees not being present during working hours, I consider that no

proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner keeping in view the

chargesheet filed by the police which was more in the nature of a closure report.

6. I, therefore, allow this petition. The FIR No.76 of 2007 under Section

354,506,509 IPC lodged at police station Maurice Nagar, Delhi and the

proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

September 09, 2010                                  SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd



Crl. MC No.544/2009    Bidyut Chakraborty v State              Page 3 Of 3