Reyaz Ahmad Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 532 of 2002 --- Reyaz Ahmad S/o Late Abdul Rauf resident of Baganpur PO Bhulan Berari, PS Jorapokhar, Dist. Dhanbad … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Madina Khatoon wife of Late Abdul Rauf by faith Momin, by occupation House Wife, at present at residing at Govindpur, PO & PS Govindpur, District Dhanbad … Opposite Parties --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : M/s. Rajiv Ranjan, Senior Advocate, Vishal Kumar Trivedi & Deepankar Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Avinesh Kumar, A.P.P. --- 6/13.01.2016 Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Avinesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears for the opposite party no.

2. The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 1490 of 2000 including the order dated 04.03.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 417/418 of the I.P.C. A complaint case was instituted by one Madina Khatoon claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of late Abdul Rauf who was an employee of BCCL, in which it has been stated that the accused persons had falsely assured the complainant in the month of January 1999 that she would be provided service in BCCL and the fund of the deceased would be distributed in the share of the accused no. 1 to 6 equally to which the complainant had agreed. It is alleged that to her surprise, it came to her knowledge that accused nos. 1 to 6 in conspiracy with accused person nos. 8 to 11 are attempting fraudulently to secure a job in the BCCL for the accused no.

4. Allegations have also been made that in the service record of the deceased employee late Abdul Rauf, the accused nos. 1 to 6 have been shown to be the members of the family, but fraudulently the death -2- certificate of strangers have been obtained at the instance of accused no. 8 to 11 and false affidavit, death certificate etc. have been furnished by the accused nos. 1 to 6 in collusion with accused nos. 8 to 11. It has also been alleged in the complaint petition that the Personnel Manager of BCCL demanded Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant for providing her with a job in place of her deceased husband and when she could not manage the said amount, the accused no. 8 had mentioned about the service which would be provided to the petitioner. It has also been alleged that the accused no. 4 (petitioner) in collusion and cooperation with accused nos. 8 to 11 caused disappearance of evidence with respect to the application form submitted by the deceased Abdul Rauf for entering the name of the complainant in the service record and family pension documents and other records. The complainant therefore, has claimed that the fraudulent act on the part of the accused persons make them liable to be tried for the offences punishable under Section 418, 420, 406, 409, 467, 465, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C. Upon inquiry conducted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as her witnesses, cognizance was taken vide order dated 04.03.2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 417/418 of the I.P.C. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant herself is not the legally wedded wife of late Abdul Rauf who was an employee of BCCL and therefore, she does not have any claim over either death benefits of late Abdul Rauf or in claiming service in BCCL. It has been submitted that the complaint petition was instituted on 21.12.2000 whereas a suit was preferred by the complainant being Title Suit No. 98 of 1999 in which a prayer was made by the complainant for declaring the plaintiff (complainant) to be entitled for being employed in BCCL under the provisions of Clause 9.3.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement – V being the widow and family dependent of the deceased Abdul Rauf. Learned senior counsel submits that the entire dispute as would appear from the complaint petition as well as the Title Suit No. 98 of 1999 is with respect to securing employment in place of deceased Abdul Rauf and for which the complainant has already taken legal -3- recourse by filing a suit. It has also been submitted that a prayer for injunction was also made in the suit which was considered by the learned court below and was rejected vide order dated 08.01.2001. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the death certificate as well as inquiry report of the B.D.O., which goes to show the falsity of allegations made in the latter part of the complaint petition with respect to the deceased brothers of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has also submitted that taking into consideration the entire facts of the case, continuation of the criminal proceeding as against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court, and therefore, the entire criminal proceeding as against him deserves to be quashed and set aside. Perusal of the complaint petition does reveal the inter se dispute of securing employment between the petitioner and the complainant. The complainant claims herself to be the legal wedded wife of deceased Abdul Rauf as has been indicated in the complaint petition, and therefore, she claims to be entitled to be given a job in BCCL. The complainant had already filed a title suit much prior to the institution of the complaint case being Title Suit No. 98 of 1999 and the prayer which has been made in the suit is quoted hereinunder:

11. (a) “For a decree for declaration declaring that plaintiff being the widow and female dependent of deceased Abdul Rahuf, Electrician is entitled to be employed in B.C.C.L. (defendant No.

1) as laid down in Clause 9.3.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement – V (for short NCWA-V) besides the monetary compensation and other benefits further declaring that plaintiff is entitled to receive and realise her share out of the amounts payable to deceased Abdul Rahuf and she cannot be deprived of all or any of those benefits. (b) For a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from depriving the plaintiff from all or any of the benefits for which she is entitled to in lieu of death of her husband and further restraining the defendants no. 1 to 4 from giving employment to any of defendants no. 5 to 10 and/or releasing payment of any amount to them (defendants no. 5 to

10) to the detriment of the plaintiff. (c) For a decree for costs of the suit.” The injunction application preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned court below vide order dated 08.01.2001. The plaintiff as it seems from the records of the case had already -4- invoked a civil remedy by preferring a suit in which her claim was with respect to entitlement of the employment in place of deceased Abdul Rauf. After the suit was filed in the year 1999, the complainant has subsequently filed the complaint case which is the subject matter of the present application. In the complaint case, various allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the officials of the BCCL with respect to securing the employment by the petitioner in place of her deceased father Abdul Rauf. There is nothing on record to suggest that the complainant was indeed the legally married wife of deceased Abdul Rauf and in fact from the service sheet of late Abdul Rauf which has been brought on record and which in fact being an impeachable document can be taken into consideration while deciding this application does not disclose the name of the complainant as the dependent of late Abdul Rauf, although the name of the petitioner figures. In fact this feature of the case has also been considered by the learned Munsif while deciding the injunction application of the complainant as it has been indicated therein that the name of the plaintiff was not mentioned as wife and nominee of the deceased in his life time. Even otherwise, the claim of the complainant for securing a job in BCCL to a certain extent depends upon the final result of Title Suit No. 98 of 1999 and the initiation of a criminal case against the petitioner appears to be a malicious prosecution imposed upon the petitioner. Thus, from the entire facets of the case enumerated above, no prima facie case for continuing with the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is made out and in such circumstances, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 1490 of 2000 including the order dated 04.03.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 417/418 of the I.P.C. is hereby quashed and set aside. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) R. Shekhar Cp 3