Jharkhand High Court
Md. Islam Ali vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another ... on 12 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 935 of 2010
1.Md. Islam Ali
2. Md. Manjar Ali @ Manjar Alam
3. Md. Johar Alam @ Zahur Alam
..........Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Another ...... Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Advocate
Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate
Miss. Shresha Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sharbil Ahmed, (through V.C.)
..........
18 /Dated: 12/12/2023
Heard Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sharbil Ahmed, learned
counsel for the O.P. No.2 through video conference.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 11.09.2009 in connection
with Pakuria P.S. Case No. 14 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 257 of 2009
(P.C.R. Case No. 94 of 2009), pending in the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, Ist Class, Pakur.
3. Complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the complainant
Md. Samsuddin @ Md.Samsuddin Kashmi who claimed himself to be a social
worker and also a teacher of Fazil in the Madarsa till 1984 filed a complaint
case in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur bearing P.C.R.
No.94 of 2009 against the petitioners under Sections 420, 471 and 468/34 of
the Indian Penal code which was forwarded by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate to the Officer-in-Charge of Pakuria Police Station Under Section
156(3) of the criminal Procedure Code according to which the petitioner No.1 is
the father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner no.1 being the Secretary, of
the Madarsa namely Islamiya Mazharul Uloom Pakuria had appointed his son
Md. Manjar Ali (Petitioner no.2) in the year 1973 and Md.Johar Ali(Petitioner
No.3) in the year 1977 on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. It was
further alleged that Md. Manjar Ali has passed Matric Examination in the year
1979 and his date of birth has been mentioned as 20/06/ 1961 in the
matriculation certificate whereas his date of birth has been mention as
01/04/1954 in his service book, Likewise in the matric Certificate of petitioner
No.3 the date of birth is mentioned as 13/03/1965 but in his service book his
date of birth has been mention as 02/04/1956 and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 used
to receive their salary from the Education Department under the state of
Jharkhand, on the basis of their false and forged certificates.
It was further alleged that the villagers had given application to Abu
Bakkar (who now died), the then President of the said Madarsa who filed an
application before the District Education Officer, Pakur in pursuance whereof an
enquiry was made by the District Education Officer and after enquiry it was
found that the petitioners No.2 and 3 were appointed as teacher in the said
Madarsa on the basis of false and forged certificates in collusion with petitioner
No.1 and accordingly the District Education Officer stopped the payment of
salary of petitioners no.2 and 3. Thereafter the District Education Officer, Pakur
sent a report to the Deputy commissioner, Pakur regarding the illegal
appointment and forgery of the petitioners but no action was taken against
them.
4. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
complaint case bearing P.C.R. No. 94 of 2009 was filed by the O.P. No.2 which
was sent by the learned court under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and pursuant to
that Pakuria P.S. Case No. 14 of 2009 was registered. He submits that for the
same offence another case being G.R. Case No. 381 of 1981 and T.R. No. 16 of
1993 under sections 120(B), 420, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. in which the
petitioners faced the trial and they have been acquitted vide judgment dated
17.09.1993. He submits that in view of acquittal with regard to same charge
present case is abuse of process of law and in view of section 300 of Cr.P.C. as
well as Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India the second trial for the same
offence is unwarranted.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that it appears that acquittal
order in G.R. Case No. 381 of 1981 is there however the case is different in
nature.
6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the cases are
different and in view of that learned court has entertained the present case and
learned court has taken cognizance.
7. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
the Court is required to find out whether allegations in G.R. No. 381 of 1981
and Pakuria P.S. Case No. 14 of 2009 are same or not. The Court finds that in
the judgment delivered by the learned Court in the G.R. Case No. 381 of 1981
allegations are discussed there in the said judgement and in the said judgment
the allegations are also made with regard to forged certificate and
appointment letter and by way of misappropriation of obtaining salary. Coming
to the facts of the present case it appears that allegations are similar as stated
in complaint petition.
8. In view of above facts to allow the proceeding will amount abuse of
process of law and in this regard reference may be made to the case of "T.P.
Gopala Krishnan Vs. State of Kerala 2022 Live Law (SC) 1039.
9. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal
proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 11.09.2009 in connection
with Pakuria P.S. Case No. 14 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 257 of 2009
(P.C.R. Case No. 94 of 2009), pending in the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, Ist Class, Pakur, is quashed.
10. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any,
stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
