GIRIDHARI LAL KANAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner has prayed for to call for the record and after examination of the same to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to take cognizance of the complaint filed by the petitioner and after due investigation file chargesheet against the respondent No. 5 for the offence committed by him. The further prayer in the writ petition is to issue appropriate direction to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to provide sufficient protection to the petitioner as there is threat to his life.

(2.) The facts as have been undraped are that the petitioner is the Vice President of Harizan Adivasi Bass Udyog Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Balaghat, having its registration No. 44/449. The said Co-operative Society is committed for the upliftment and development of downtrodden members of Scheduled Castes Community. It is entitled for financial assistance and running its affairs from the Zila Sahakari Kendra Bank, Hoshangabad to avail uninterrupted financial assistance. The petitioner has completed all the formalities and submitted necessary and relevant documents for sanction of credit limit as directed by the respondent No. 5 and the Chief Observor of the said Bank. It is setforth in the writ petition that despite completion of all formalities the respondent No. 5 acting illegally, deliberately delayed the grant of financial assistance on one pretext or the other. The petitioner contacted the respondent No. 5 time and again and the said respondent informed the petitioner that for the processing of the application of the Society an expense of Rs. 20,000/- would have to be incurred by the Society. Believing the aforesaid representation of the respondent No. 5 the petitioner withdrew a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the Savings Bank Account of the aforesaid society on 22-9-1999 and delivered the amount to the respondent No. 5 who issued a receipt in his own handwriting as per Annexure P/1. Despite of payment of necessary processing charges, as represented by the respondent No. 5, the Society was not sanctioned the desired credit facility as a result of which the functioning of the Society was paralysed and the members virtually reached the stage of starvation. Perceiving the unjustified inordinate delay in sanctioning the credit facility the petitioner and the other office bearers of the Society enquired into the matter and to their shock and surprise they were informed that no processing charges as recovered by the respondent No. 5 was required to be paid and in fact, the said respondent misappropriated the amount. Realising this, the President of the Society lodged a complaint before the Lokayukt, Chief Secretary, Inspector General of Police Harijan Kalyan and the Collector, Hoshangabad, Copy of the said complaint has been brought on record as Annexure P/2. It is putforth in the writ petition that the society delegated the petitioner to file affidavit on oath regarding the incident and accordingly submitted the affidavit as per Annexure P/3.

(3.) According to the petitioner the respondent No. 4, Station House Officer, having received the information/complaint called the petitioner on 6-12-1999 to meet him in the Guest House of the Bank. The respondent No. 5 seeing the petitioner started abusing and insulting him in extremely filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. The petitioner felt humiliated because he is a member of the Scheduled Caste. The petitioner went to the Police Station, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare, Hoshangabad to lodge a report of the incident but the personnel present declined to register the FIR on the ground that the Town Inspector was not available. Thereafter the petitioner approached the authority of the police station but every time his FIR was not recorded on some flimsy execuses. Thereafter the petitioner, under compelling circumstances, submitted a report in writing on 23-12-1999 at the Police Station Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare, Hoshangabad, as per Annexure P/4. It is alleged in the petition that despite written report by the petitioner the Station House Officer has not taken cognizance of the matter and is avoiding to take action against the respondent No. 5 for his political influence in the area. It is putforth that as the Station House Officer has not taken any steps in the matter the petitioner submitted a written complaint to the Inspector General of Police. Bhopal, as per Annexure P/5 but no action has yet been taken and efforts are being made to hush-up the matter. It is averred in the writ petition that the respondent No. 5 being the Chairman of the District Co-operative Central Bank is a public servant and the aforesaid acts tantamount to cognizable offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1985 and hence, the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are duty bound to register the FIR against the respondent No. 5 on the basis of the complaint made against him and to take appropriate action in the matter, but the said action is not being taken up though mandated in law. With the aforesaid averments reliefs have been sought, as have been incdicated hereinabove.