GOPAL SHUKLA @ GOPAL DUTT SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2009-8-161
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on August 05,2009

Gopal Shukla @ Gopal Dutt Shukla Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Jharkhand with Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 28.05.2001 whereby and whereunder, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj, Palamau took cognizance of the offences under Sections 327/384 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with C. Case No. 121 of 2001.
(2.) THE case of the complainant in brief is that on 28.03.2001, he had been called by petitioner no. 1 Gopal Shukla @ Gopal Dutt Shukla while he was passing through the road. It is stated that whereupon the complainant went to the office of petitioner no. 1. Thereafter petitioner no. 2, (Smt. Sushma Shukla) took out a pistol from Almirah and after putting the same on his head, asked him to put his signature on stamp paper. It is further alleged that when the complainant -opposite party no. 2 refused to do so, petitioner no. 1 assaulted him with lathi, whereupon complainant -opposite party out of fear put his signature on the stamp paper. It is also mentioned that opposite party no. 2 is a headmaster of Jitendra Kumar Vishwakarma High School, Daltonganj and petitioner no. 1 is working in the said school as teacher since 1992 to 1997. It is further stated that when petitioner no. 1 came to know that said school is going to be taken over by the Government then he started compelling the complainant -opposite party no. 2 to mark his attendance up to date, so that he may get monetary benefit. It is submitted that the aforesaid complaint petition has been filed with malicious intention. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 1 is principal of Maharshi Dayanand Aayurvedic College. It is then submitted that petitioner came to know that complainant is collecting money from different students for getting them admitted in the said college. Thereafter, complainant was called and asked by petitioner no. 1 2 to deposit the said money, which he was not depositing and had filed the present case only with a view to pressurize the petitioner. It is further submitted that on 20.02.2001 complainant filed an informatory petition before Sub -Divisional Officer, Daltonganj in which he had given totally different story with regard to the occurrence, which also shows that present petition filed only with malicious intention. Accordingly, it is submitted that entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submitted that while exercising power under Section 484 of Cr. P.C., it is not open for this Court to look into the defence of petitioners for quashing the criminal proceeding and/or order taking cognizance. It is submitted that from the complaint petition, as well as the statement of witnesses, prima -facie offence under Section 327 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, therefore, learned court below had rightly took cognizance of the offence and issued processes against the petitioners, which requires no interference by this Court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.