To Call A Person By Issuing Summon, On Examination Of Few Witnesses Is Serious Thing: Jharkhand HC Quashes Case Against Junior Engineer
The Jharkhand High Court has quashed a case against a Junior Engineer saying that to call a person by issuing summon, on examination of few witnesses is a serious thing. The said junior engineer was accused of taking bribe and committing the offence of theft.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held, “In the present case, the opposite party no.2 has filed the case alleging therein that golden chain worth Rs.30,000/- was snatched by the petitioner. The filing of earlier FIR by the petitioner has also been disclosed in the present complaint case. In view of that, it appears that maliciously, the present case has been filed as a counter blast of earlier FIR filed by the petitioner, in which opposite party no.2 is facing trial. Further, the Court finds that the said complaint case is also not on affidavit. To call a person by way of issuing summon, on examination of few witnesses is serious thing”
The Bench observed this while referring to the judgment in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2015) 6 SCC 287].
Advocate Rakesh Kumar appeared for the petitioner while APP V.S. Sahay and Advocate Vishal Kumar Tiwary appeared for the opposite parties.
Brief Facts -
The opposite party/complainant filed a case against the petitioner and other 4 to 5 unknown persons alleging that the petitioner along with others allegedly came to his shop and demanded the due bill amounting Rs. 6,413/- upon which he requested the petitioner for some time and then the petitioner became irritated and started abusive languages against him and other family members. Thereafter, the complainant’s brother paid Rs. 4,000/- to the petitioner and requested to rectify the Electricity Bill and further said that they would pay the rest amount after rectification in Electricity Bill, to which the petitioner refused and allegedly demanded Rs. 10,000/- as illegal.
The petitioner allegedly threatened that if they would not pay the said amount, the Department would disconnect his Electricity connection and file a criminal case against them. It was further alleged that when the complainant and his family members stood against the alleged abusive language and misbehaviour, the petitioner caught the collar of the complainant’s brother and snatched his gold chain worth Rs. 30,000/-. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition before the court for quashing the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was employed as Junior Engineer in JUVNL and he along with others raided the premises of opposite party no.2 on 16.03.2015 and found that electricity theft was being done by opposite party no.2 and for that, he has registered the case on 16.03.2015. The said case was investigated by the police and since the FIR was lodged against grandfather of opposite party no.2 who left for heavenly abode much before lodging of the case, in view of that final form was submitted and the learned court on protest petition, has taken cognizance against opposite party no.2.”
The Court said that it was incumbent upon the complainant if his grandfather left for his heavenly abode, he was required to take steps for transfer of the said electricity connection in his favour, but he has not done so and was using the electricity.
“On the raid, the petitioner found using of electricity by way of theft and he has filed the FIR being Gumla P.S. Case No.114/2015”, added the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceeding against the petitioner.
Cause Title- Birendra Oraon v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
