Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) Both the applications were heard together, as any finding arrived at in Cr.M.P. No. 2335 of 2012 would have bearing on the other application i.e. Cr.M.P. No. 1408 of 2014. Cr.M.P. No. 2335 of 2012 This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 704 of 2011, including the order dated 28.8.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Ss. 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Sec. 3(1))(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been taken against the petitioner.
(2.) Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of.
(3.) A written report was submitted by the opposite party No. 2 before the Officer In -charge of Harijan Police Station, Ranchi alleging therein that the opposite party No. 2, posted as Junior Engineer in Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Sonahatu, is being subjected to torture by the petitioner, Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Ranchi, as he belongs to Adivasi community. In the meeting, the petitioner always scolded him by saying that he is like animal who does not know as to how reply of a letter is made. He used to hurl abuses in presence of other persons. Further it has been alleged that the petitioner by saying so -called him (opposite party No. 2) in his Chambers and got his signature affixed over a letter dated 19.5.2010 forcibly and that the petitioner always used to hurl abuses on him, as he belongs to the Adivasi community. Further, it has been disclosed that the petitioner was misbehaving, as he was carrying some kind of grudge over the matter relating to construction of high cycle tubewell which started functioning from 31.7.2009 and thereby he had submitted the final bill through MB Book (pages 88 -100 and pages 76 -89) which has been acknowledged by the petitioner vide its letter No. 1602 dated 7.8.2009 and in that event, there was no justification for asking for the real status of the project vide letter No. 951 dated 19.5.2010 and by getting his signature over the letter dated 19.5.2010, the petitioner intended to implicate him in some case.;