HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.4.2004, passed in Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2003 whereby and where under learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur affirmed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate passed in C/1 Case No. 317 of 1993 dated 17.4.2003.
(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint case before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur on 30.9.1993 relating to the occurrence alleged to have taken place on 29.9.1993. The petitioner, Ashok Mehta was at the relevant point of time posted as Executive Director (Administration) but he has now retired and petitioner No. 2, Arun Narayan Singh, was holding the post of General Manager, Town division, TISCO. Learned Magistrate examined the complainant on S.A. on 30.9.1993 and held enquiry under Sec.202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and recorded statement of witnesses on the basis of which he took cognizance against the petitioner and one Anil Kumar Shrivas -tava, Officer -in -Charge of Bistupur Police Station, Jamshedpur, vide order dated 6.9.1994 for offences under Secs. 147, 148, 448, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Cafeteria in question was given to one S.A. Sanmugam Pillai by a licence dated 1.12.1972 by the TISCO Limited and later he entered into a partnership with Deo Sharan Singh and thereafter in this way licence was given to Deo Sharan Singh on 27.11.1985, but due to old age he entered into a partnership with one Shrimati Leela Devi, wife of complainant and her son -in -law Ram Pukar Singh with whom the complainant was associated. The above licence was granted on 27.11.1985 for a period of two years commencing from 1.1.1984 to 31.12.1985.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and is fit to be set aside. It was also pointed out that learned Courts below have committed manifest error of law by overlooking the directions given by this Court in Cr. Misc. Nos. 164 of 1995 (R), 4305 of 1994 (R) and 4958 of 1994 (R) which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 27.2.1996 and the learned Courts below should have followed the directions given by this High Court but surprisingly enough learned Courts below have riot followed the directions and thereby violated the directions of the High Court. It was further pointed out that both the Courts below have failed to look into this aspect of the matter and further that this complaint case has been filed as a counter blast to the First Information Report that was lodged against them by the TISCO officials. It was also pointed out that absence of allegation as against these petitioners in the writ petition filed by the complainant before the High Court make it clear that the instant complaint petition is nothing but after thought as it has been filed with a sole intention to harass the petitioners, who are senior officials of TISCO. It was further pointed out that there was sufficient material on record before both the Courts below to discharge the petitioners and even if the allegations as levelled against the petitioners by tile complainant are taken to be true in its entirety, there is no probability that the petitioners will be held guilty of committing offence as alleged. The First Information Report was lodged not against the complainant but with regard to the acts of Increasing unlawful activities carried out at Lake Cafeteria as also the acts amounting to hurt, theft, criminal intimidation etc. committed by the complainant and his accomplices and competent Court has held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between TISCO and the complainant. It was further pointed out that learned Magistrate has made out a third which is against the materials on record and this fact has also been overlooked by the leaned Sessions Judge. The allegations are carried out with malice and absurdity and the allegations levelled and the evidence produced do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the petitioners. It was also pointed out that the complaint petition has been filed belatedly for which no reasonable explanation has been furnished and continuance of such case will amount to abuse of the process of the Court.;