Ravindra Narayan ShrivastavA. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[p. sathasivam ; h.l. gokhale, j.j.] - the indian penal code, 1860 section 302 - punishment for murder -- sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav was instituted. sunil yadav was instituted. on 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at nawada sadar hospital, si anil kumar gupta recorded the statement of sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav and on the basis of his statement fir no 12/97 was registered with govindpur p.s under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 447 ipc against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, suresh yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav. the charge-sheet bearing no. 12/97 was submitted in fir no. 11/97 p.s. govindpur, on 30.06.1997 against brahamdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto, maho yadav, paro mahto, kuldeep yadav, sudhir yadav, bale yadav, shivan yadav and suraj yadav and sunil yadav who was later instituted. the charge sheet bearing no. 36/97 was also submitted in fir no. 12/97 p.s. govindpur, on 17.12.1997 against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav except suresh yadav s/o kesho yadav as he had died. informant-naresh yadav (pw-9) informant-sunil yadav (a9 in fir 11/97) brahmdeo yadav, darogi mahto, sunil s/o bale yadav, maho yadav, kuldeep yadav, bale yadav, suraj yadav, shiv nandan yadav, sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav, sudhir yadav and paro mahto, total 11 persons forming a group came there and surrounded them. brahmdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto and maho yadav were armed with rifle. bale yadav, kuldeep yadav, shiv nandan yadav and suraj yadav were armed with gandassa. kuldeep yadav gave gandassa blow to munshi yadav.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned additional public prosecutor for the state.2. since both these applications arise out of one common order involved one common question so they have been heard together and being disposed of by this composite order.3. admittedly one official complaint case no. 63/2005 was filed on 20.07.2005 in the court of chief judicial magistrate, bhojpur at ara, by the then registrar of civil court against the two retired employees of civil court who were in service at ara civil court, being attached with the court of the office of 1st additional district judge, ara.4. in the complaint case, it is averted that there was one title appeal no. 195/1966/30/2000 pending in the court of 1st additional district judge, ara, arising out of title suit no. 102/1958/20/1960 was sent to the judgeship of rohtas, but the lower court records i.e. record of the suit was not sent, ultimately c.w.j.c. no. 5075/2003 was filed before this court accordingly a search was made and record of lower court records could be located in different almirahs kept in the office of said appellate court at ara, but first page of the order sheet, some exhibited documents and papers were missing from the record so found. and since in the year 1978 when judgeship of rohtas was created, record of appellate court was sent, the two petitioners were attached with the court of 1st additional district judge, they were noticed to show cause and ultimately were found to be responsible for the said mischief and destruction, hence complaint case was filed accordingly, in the court of chief judicial magistrate, ara, where cognizance of the offence 178 and 446 i.p.c. was taken, giving rise to application under section 482 of the criminal procedure code, seeking quashing by the two named accused persons.5. it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that averments in the complaint are vague containing nothing therein to show commission of any offence by these two petitioners who, though, were attached with the court of learned 1st additional district judge, ara at bhojpur in the year 1978, but already been retired much before, moreover, the offences, if any, were committed in the year 1978 as appeared from the complaint petition but the complaint was filed in the year 2005 and accordingly cognizance was taken, much beyond the period of limitation without any material/prayer for condonation of delay nor even from the order of the court below, it appears that this aspect of limitation was considered there.6. learned additional public prosecutor tried his level best to support the impugned order and submitted that it was earlier not known to the administration that any such wrong has been done and when in pursuance of the orders of this court in connection with c.w.j.c. no. 5075/2003, hectic search of the lower court records was made, the same was traced out, and commission of wrong at the hands of the petitioners came into light only thereafter the complaint was filed.7. it would not be out of place to mention that after filing of this case initially vide order dated 16.05.2006 by staying operation of the order of the court below, lower court records was also called for and subsequently after hearing vide order dated 05.12.2006 a detailed report from district judge, ara, in the administrative side and inquiry report was called for from the report of the then district judge through letter no. 35/2007. it appears that earlier his predecessor vide letter no. 22c/2005 dated 1st june 2005 had already reported this court in administrative side that on receiving explanation of the two retired employees, the petitioners here, he was of the opinion that it was a case of gross negligence on their part, but no criminal case was instituted against the petitioners since no such offence is made out, but subsequently on receipt of instruction of this court in administrative side, the complaint was filed vide letter no. 119c dated 04.07.2005.8. but from the lower court records neither it appears that any such thing have been averted or produced before the courts below to show that any offence is made out rather it appears that in very mechanical manner complaint petition has been drafted and filed before the court, who also taking into consideration that it is an official complaint proceeded with and took cognizance.9. the period of limitation prescribed for the filing of the complaint for such alleged offences is one year but as per complaint the offences were committed in the year 1978 and complaint has been filed in the year 2005. it is self-explanatory nothing more is required to be said.10. no care has been taken to insert relevant dates, specific order relating to transfer of record from bhojpur to rohtas etc. simultaneously, there is absolutely nothing in the complaint petition that the petitioners were the persons solely responsible for such short transmission and they with particular intention did not comply with the order. in absence of any specific order and other relating details, it cannot be said that the requirement for commission of offences even prima facie is complied with; rather from plain reading of the complaint petition no criminal offence appears committed.11. in that view of the matter, the impugned order and the complaint petition both are quashed and accordingly, these two applications stand allowed.

Judgment:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Since both these applications arise out of one common order involved one common question so they have been heard together and being disposed of by this composite order.

3. Admittedly one official complaint case no. 63/2005 was filed on 20.07.2005 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara, by the then Registrar of Civil Court against the two retired employees of civil court who were in service at Ara civil court, being attached with the court of the office of 1st Additional District Judge, Ara.

4. In the complaint case, it is averted that there was one Title Appeal No. 195/1966/30/2000 pending in the court of 1st Additional District Judge, Ara, arising out of Title Suit No. 102/1958/20/1960 was sent to the judgeship of Rohtas, but the Lower Court Records i.e. record of the suit was not sent, ultimately C.W.J.C. No. 5075/2003 was filed before this court accordingly a search was made and record of Lower Court Records could be located in different Almirahs kept in the office of said Appellate Court at Ara, but first page of the order sheet, some exhibited documents and papers were missing from the record so found. And since in the year 1978 when judgeship of Rohtas was created, record of appellate court was sent, the two petitioners were attached with the court of 1st Additional District Judge, they were noticed to show cause and ultimately were found to be responsible for the said mischief and destruction, hence complaint case was filed accordingly, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara, where cognizance of the offence 178 and 446 I.P.C. was taken, giving rise to application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking quashing by the two named accused persons.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that averments in the complaint are vague containing nothing therein to show commission of any offence by these two petitioners who, though, were attached with the court of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Ara at Bhojpur in the year 1978, but already been retired much before, moreover, the offences, if any, were committed in the year 1978 as appeared from the complaint petition but the complaint was filed in the year 2005 and accordingly cognizance was taken, much beyond the period of limitation without any material/prayer for condonation of delay nor even from the order of the court below, it appears that this aspect of limitation was considered there.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor tried his level best to support the impugned order and submitted that it was earlier not known to the administration that any such wrong has been done and when in pursuance of the orders of this court in connection with C.W.J.C. No. 5075/2003, hectic search of the lower court records was made, the same was traced out, and commission of wrong at the hands of the petitioners came into light only thereafter the complaint was filed.

7. It would not be out of place to mention that after filing of this case initially vide order dated 16.05.2006 by staying operation of the order of the court below, lower court records was also called for and subsequently after hearing vide order dated 05.12.2006 a detailed report from District Judge, Ara, in the administrative side and inquiry report was called for from the report of the then District Judge through letter no. 35/2007. It appears that earlier his predecessor vide letter no. 22C/2005 dated 1st June 2005 had already reported this court in administrative side that on receiving explanation of the two retired employees, the petitioners here, he was of the opinion that it was a case of gross negligence on their part, but no criminal case was instituted against the petitioners since no such offence is made out, but subsequently on receipt of instruction of this court in administrative side, the complaint was filed vide letter no. 119C dated 04.07.2005.

8. But from the Lower Court Records neither it appears that any such thing have been averted or produced before the courts below to show that any offence is made out rather it appears that in very mechanical manner complaint petition has been drafted and filed before the court, who also taking into consideration that it is an official complaint proceeded with and took cognizance.

9. The period of limitation prescribed for the filing of the complaint for such alleged offences is one year but as per complaint the offences were committed in the year 1978 and complaint has been filed in the year 2005. It is self-explanatory nothing more is required to be said.

10. No care has been taken to insert relevant dates, specific order relating to transfer of record from Bhojpur to Rohtas etc. Simultaneously, there is absolutely nothing in the complaint petition that the petitioners were the persons solely responsible for such short transmission and they with particular intention did not comply with the order. In absence of any specific order and other relating details, it cannot be said that the requirement for commission of offences even prima facie is complied with; rather from plain reading of the complaint petition no criminal offence appears committed.

11. In that view of the matter, the impugned order and the complaint petition both are quashed and accordingly, these two applications stand allowed.