- (1.) THIS is an application for quashing the order dated 27.11.2004 passed by Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 307 of 1989 corresponding to T.R. No. 54 of 2004 whereby and whereunder he had summoned the petitioner through Mr. Noor, the then Director of Collieries of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
(2.) IT appears that the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint petition in the Court of Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh who, vide order dated 5.10.1989, sent the said complaint petition to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. However, the said order was recalled on 7.4.1992 and the complainant was examined on S.A. Thereafter the case was fixed for further inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. It then appears that co -accused filed an application in the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench vide Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3780 of 1992. It further appears that in the said application further proceeding of court below pertaining to Complaint Case No. 307 of 1989 has been stayed. However, it appears that the said criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed and the said order communicated to the court concerned on 9.8.1986 (sic). Thereafter on completion of the inquiry learned court below concluded that prima facie case against the accused persons under Sections 379, 447 and 120B of the I.P.C. made out, thus it directed the office for issuance of process. It appears that thereafter again an application filed before the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench vide Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 3282 of 1997. Aforesaid application disposed of with a direction to the court below for passing appropriate order on petition of discharge if filed by the accused person. It appears that thereafter the case fixed for evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. However, on being pointed out by the complainant, it transpired to the court below that in spite of issuance of summon on 8.4.1997, accused no. 1 namely Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. through its Director of Collieries had not appeared, therefore the court below again issued summon against the petitioner vide order dated 27.11.2004. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no post of Director of Collieries in TISCO. It is further submitted that no offence is made out against the petitioner Mr. Noor, the then Director of Collieries, hence issuance of summon against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of court. It is also submitted that the cognizance taken by the court below is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) HAVING heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. It is worth mentioning that the present application has been filed by the petitioner Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. through its Director of Collieries represented by its Attorney Mrs. Meena Lall. Under the said circumstance, the averment of petitioner that there is no post of Director of Collieries appears to be an afterthought, because if no post of Director of Collieries exist then how the TISCO filed this application through Director of Collieries. Thus the first submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected.;