RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) HEARD Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) IN this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Godda (T) P.S. Case No. 225 of 1999 corresponding to G. R. No. 646 of 1999 including the order dated 12.02.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
(3.) THE prosecution case arising out of a written complaint made by the informant, Jai Kumar Das, is to the effect that he had gone to the Office of the Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D. where he is employed as Head Assistant and on demand of salary on 13.01.1999 the Executive Engineer is alleged to have stated that his L.P.C. has already been issued. It has further been alleged that in the meantime some of the officials had come and abused him in the name of his caste. Based on the aforesaid allegations Godda (T) P.S. Case No. 225 of 1999 had been instituted. Investigation commenced and since the allegations were detected to be unfounded, the Final Form was submitted on 30.10.2000. Thereupon, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda differed with the report of the Investigating Officer and vide order dated 12.02.2002 was pleased to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 504 , 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and thereafter, the case was sent for trial to the court of learned Special Judge from where summons were issued to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire allegations are false and concocted and has been instituted only as a retaliatory measure on account of reversion of the informant to the post of Correspondence Clerk. It has further been submitted that although the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 30.01.1999 but the written report was submitted on 15.07.1999 and no explanation has been given by the informant with respect to the delay in instituting the criminal case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further adds that the written report itself discloses that the only issue involved was with respect to relieving the petitioner for joining at Bhagalpur and non -payment of the salary for a year. He ,therefore, submits that the grievance of the petitioner is basically related to a departmental action and such act cannot be said to be constituting a criminal act on the part of the petitioner.;