RADHACHARAN Vs. OMPRAKASH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) respondent No. 1, the complainant (since deceased), filed a complaint under Sections 167, 409, 420, 467 and 468, I.P.C., has come up in revision against the order dated 16-1-1990, passed in Criminal Revision No. 118 of 1988 by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, whereby the order dated 2-4-1988 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, of dismissal of the complaint, passed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the 'Code'), was set aside and the case was remitted to the Inquiring Magistrate for reconsideration and to pass orders in accordance with law, on the material of the inquiry made under Section 202 of the Code.

(2.) The complainant, as a citizen, filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner on 28-1-1986 making allegations therein that the petitioner, who is in the service of Government of Madhya Pradesh and working as Deputy Director, Agriculture, has falsely withdrawn T.A., D.A. and has also withdrawn the amount of Rs. 10,000.00 for payment of wages of two muster-roll pseudonymous persons, namely, Girish and Brij Bhushan, of which verification was made by him. It was also alleged that the petitioner has committed forgery in the stock register by showing distribution of more quantity than actually distributed of Superphosphate fertilizer.

(3.) The Inquiring Magistrate on receipt of complaint vide order dated 14-2-86, instead of examining the complainant and the witnesses present, directed investigation to be made by a police officer u/s. 156 (3) of the Code. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Padav, made an investigation and sent his report dated 17-4-1986, with 54 documents containing the statements recorded during inquiry and also the documents filed by the complainant and the witnesses. The Station House Officer, after investigation, came to the conclusion that the complaint is false and frivolous, which has been made at the instance of the employees because of the enmity and differences between the petitioner and the employees of the Department. After receipt of this report, the Inquiring Magistrate himself held the inquiry and recorded the statements of the complainant and witnesses present, namely, Prakash Narayan Sexena, Brij Narayan Rohatgi, Hakim Singh Yadav, Amritrao Surve, Bhau Saheb Bhale, and Devi Singh. Vide order dated 3-8-1987, a report was also called from the Director of Agriculture, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal about the truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint as to the cheating, forgery and embezzlement. In compliance of this order, the Joint Director of Agriculture sent a report dated 7-12-1987 stating therein that from time to time, the complaints were made against the petitioner in respect of the allegations; of the said allegations an inquiry was made wherein the allegations were not found to be true, and therefore, the departmental action was dropped against the petitioner. The Inquiring Magistrate, after due consideration of the materials of the inquiry and the report of investigation as directed u/s. 202(1) of the Code, and after hearing the complainant, formed an opinion that there is no 'sufficient ground' for proceeding with the complaint, and dismissed the same.