Jharkhand High Court
Tata Steel Limited Through vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 764 of 2022
Tata Steel Limited through
Its Principal Legal counsel, namely, Gyanendra Karan
.... .. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Vikram Singh .. ... ... Opp. Parties
With
Cr. M. P. No.1096 of 2022
1. Kripal Singh
2. Sanjay @ Sanjay Kumar Singh .... .. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Vikram Singh .. ... ... Opp. Parties
With
Cr. M. P. No.1098 of 2022
1. Hansraj Verma
2. Kumar Ashwani @ Ashwani Kumar
3. Arun Kumar Rout .... .. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Vikram Singh .. ... ... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioners : M/s Indrajit Sinha, Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III
Binit Chandra, AC to AAG-III
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashish Priyadarshi, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
06 / Dated : 23.02.2023
1. All the aforesaid three Cr. Misc. Petitions arise out of Complaint Case
No.2760 of 2019, as such, they are being heard together and disposed of by this
common judgment and have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding
including the order taking cognizance 03.12.2021 passed by the learned CJM,
Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.2760 of 2019 whereby and whereunder,
cognizance of the offence has been taken for the offences under Sections 406, 418, 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The complainant is the former employee of Tata Steel Limited and the case
in brief is that Rs.3,15,830/- had been deducted from his retiral dues on account of
penal rent of the quarter in which he had admittedly overstayed after his retirement on
1.12.2018 and he vacated the quarter on 15.06.2019. On the basis of all these
assertions, the complaint was filed and after recording the statement of the
complainant and two enquiry witnesses, the learned court below has passed the
impugned order. Being aggrieved by which, the aforesaid Cr. Misc. Petitions have
been filed.
3. The order has been impugned on the ground that the offence, as alleged
will not be make out as recovery of penal rent for overstaying in the quarter by an
employee is permissible in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 1063.
4. It is submitted that it is travesty of justice that for invoking the penal
provision, the petitioners who are officers have been maliciously prosecuted by filing
the complaint case and mechanically the learned court below has passed the
summoning order.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that the
provision of Section 406 of IPC will be squarely attracted in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. The retiral dues were under a trust with the
employer which has been deducted without his consent. Further the penal rent
was deducted without any notice.
6. From perusal of the undertaking given by the complainant, which is
annexed with the complaint petition, it is apparent that the Company was
authorized to recover from the settlement dues all sum outstanding from the
complaint to be paid to the Company.
7. It is not disputed that the complainant had overstayed in the official
quarter of the company. It is also not disputed that for overstaying the penal rent
was to be charged. The only grievance is that the said deduction could not have
been made from the retiral dues which are not tenable in view of the
undertaking himself given by the complainant. This case has only been filed to
pressurize the management and is a gross abuse of the process of the Court.
Under the circumstance, the entire criminal proceeding including the
order taking cognizance 03.12.2021 passed in Complaint Case No.2760 of 2019 is
quashed.
All three Cr. Misc. Petitions stand allowed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT
