- (1.) HEARD Sri Kaji Sabiurrahman, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., Sri A.K. Jauhari, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and 3 and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned counsel for O.P. No. 4.
(2.) THIS application has been moved by the applicant Umar Daraz Ahmad with a prayer to quash the order dated 23.10.2012 passed by learned C.J.M. Lucknow in complaint case No. 3869 of 2012 whereby the complaint has been dismissed and the order dated 14.1.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/ TECP -5, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 418 of 2012 whereby the revision filed by the applicant has been dismissed.
(3.) THE facts in brief of t his case are that the complaint has been lodged by the applicant by the applicant with a prayer to taken the cognizance and after summoning the O.P. No. 2,3 and 4 convict them according to the law, thereafter the statement of the applicant was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of the witness under section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned C.J.M. Lucknow dismissed the complaint in exercise of power conferred under section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 23.10.2012. The order dated 23.10.2012 passed by learned C.J.M. Lucknow has been challenged by the applicant by way of filing the Criminal Revision No. 418 of 2012, the same has been dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge/ TECP -5, Lucknow. According to the complaint and statement recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the applicant was working as UDC in the office of Director, Consensus, Lekhraj Doller, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. He got the employment under the scheme of Dying in Harness at the place of his father who died. It is alleged that the association of the office known as Akhil Bhartiya Consensus Electronic Date Processing Staff Association handed over the resolution with regard to their statements and its copies were communicated to Registrar General of India, Consensus Commissioner, Deputy Director (Administration), Lekhraj Market -III, Indira Nagar, Lucknow, Director DDE Centre, Lekhraj Doller Bhavan, Indira Nagar, Lucknow and JCM, Lucknow. The copy of this resolution was affixed on notice board of the office in which it was mentioned that due to non availability of the applicant in the office the medical aid could not be duly decided and a reference of earlier incident dated 14.8.1997 has been given in which respect the department has lodged the FIR at P.S. Ghazipur and on account of non initiation of disciplinary action, there was resentment amongst the employees and a demand was made the work entrusted to him may be transferred to some other employee. Being aggrieved from the affixing of the resolution on the notice board the applicant filed the compliant. The learned C.J.M. Lucknow has perused the complaint and statement of the witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and recorded the findings that prima facie it was a case of departmental and related to administration and no offence was made out on account of affixing the copy of the resolution on the notice board and no offence punishable under section 500 and 501 IPC is made out, by recording such findings the complaint filed by applicant has been dismissed. The order dated 23.10.2012 is a well reasoned order. The revisional court has also discussed all the allegation made in the complaint and statements recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and came to the conclusion that no offence of the defamation is constituted. The learned revisional court has affirmed the order passed by learned C.J.M. Lucknow and dismissed the revision vide order dated 14.1.2013. The order dated 14.1.2013 is not suffering from any illegality or irregularities. It is a well reasoned perfect order. It does not require any interference by this court. The allegation made against O.P. No. 2,3 and 4 in any case are not constituted for the offence punishable under section 500 and 501 IPC. The impugned order dated 23.10.2012 passed by learned C.J.M. and order dated 14.1.2013 passed by learned revisional court are hereby affirmed. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is refused.;