- (1.) The instant W.P.(Cr.) No. 186 of 2010 and the Cr.M.P. No 146 of 2010 have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 287 of 2008 and also the order dated 9.7.2009 passed by Shri R. K. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioners have been directed to face trial for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C.
(2.) The brief fact appearing from the complaint is that on 31.1.2008, the complainant Chanda Devi along with Malti Devi went to the office of the B.D.O., Govindpur to make a request to do arrangement for employment of Malti Devi because construction of Check Dam is going on her land. Thereafter B.D.O., Manoj Kumar (petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 146 of 2010) told the complainant and her companion to meet with Shiv Bachan Singh (petitioner in W.P.(Cr.) No. 186 of 2010) who was then Block Agriculture Officer. The complainant and Malti Devi approached Shiv Bachan Singh, who asked to arrange Rs. 55,000/- for getting employment. Again the complainant went to B.D.O. and disclosed that they are not capable of making arrangement for Rs. 55,000/- and they are entitled to get employment against the land acquired for construction of Check Dam. Thereafter they were abused and assaulted with fists and slaps and hence the matter was reported to Govindpur P.S. in writing, but no action was taken against the accused persons and thereafter this complaint being Complaint Case No. 287 of 2008 was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in which after holding inquiry, cognizance under Section 323 I.P.C. was taken against the petitioners and they were directed to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. vide impugned order dated 9.7.2009.
(3.) It is contended that the complainant with her associates have created scene in the office and they wanted to get the contract work of Check Dam in their favour. Since they had caused hindrance to the petitioner in discharge of their official duty, the matter was brought to the knowledge of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad and after that F.I.R. against the opposite party No. 2 being Govindpur P.S. Case No 29 of 2008 under Sections 353, 504 and 34 I.P.C. was registered. In that case, after submission of charge-sheet, cognizance has also been taken against the opposite party No. 2. It is further submitted that Complaint Case No. 287 of 2008 was filed as a counter blast to Govindpur P.S. Case No. 29 of 2008 with an intention to harass and humiliate the Government Officials and also to create pressure upon them to withdraw the case instituted against the opposite party No. 2. It is pointed out that order dated 9.7.2009 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate has directed the petitioners to face trial under Section 323 I.P.C. is not sustainable in the eye of law and it is purely malicious prosecution and such prosecution cannot be permitted to be continued against Government Officials. The counsel appearing for the petitioners have relied upon the judgments in the case of Deo Lakhan Paswan v. State of Jhrkhand & another, 2012 1 JLJR 206 (SC) and Anjani Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, 2008 5 SCC 248. Relying on the above judgments it was submitted that no information was lodged at Govindpur P.S. on the date of incident i.e. 31.1.2008. On that very date neither Sanha nor F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners on the basis of any information lodged by the O.P. NO. 2. The complaint was filed in Court on 13.2.2008 i.e. after 10 days of the incident and in between, the matter was not informed to any superior police officials. It was further submitted that complaint was filed against the Government Officials as a counter blast to action taken by them in their official capacity and such complaint was an afterthought and therefore, criminal prosecution on such complaint is required to be quashed as held by their lordships in the judgments of Deo Lakhan Paswan and Anjani Kumar .;