Dr.Deep NaraIn MishrA.Vs State of Bihar.and ors - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[r.v. raveendran; a. k. patnaik] indian penal code section 452 - house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- after investigation, the police filed two challans on 02.02.2006 before the judicial magistrate, first class, ludhiana. after further investigation, the superintendent of police, city-ii, ludhiana, submitted his report to the deputy inspector general of police, ludhiana range. the relevant portion of the report of the superintendent of police, city-ii, ludhiana, which contains his conclusions after further investigation, is extracted herein below: "i found during my investigation that mohan singh, son of shri sher singh , dharmatma singh, harpal singh, jagdev singh and bhupinder singh, sons of mohan singh, residents of pullanwal, sold one plot of 1 kanal 13 marlas on 09.03.2004 to bharpur sigh, harnek singh, sons of balbir singh, jagjit singh, son of amarjit singh, gurcharan singh, son of hari dass and jagdev singh, son of harpal singh, resident of phulanawal through registered sale deed vasikha no.23895 and the mutation no.10940 duly entered in the name of purchasing party. for deciding the issue, we must first refer to the provisions of section 173 of the cr.p.c. under which the police submits reports after investigation and after further investigation, section 190 of the cr. p.c. under which the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report and section 482 of the cr.p.c. under which the high court exercises its powers to quash the criminal proceedings. report of police officer on completion of investigation. cognizance of offences by magistrate. sub-section (8) of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. 1.navaniti prasad singh, j:- the petitioner challenges annexure 5 and annexure 12 by which the governing body of the private ayurvedic college dismissed him from service while he was serving as a principle thereof. notices were issued to the college and the governing body but no one has appeared.2.having perused the record and seen the proceeding of the governing body, on both occasions notices were sent to the petitioner, who refused to receive them and as such governing body took a decision in that regard.3.it may be noted that challenging the decision of the governing body, the petitioner had filed a civil suit, which after two years, he withdrew and then filed this writ petition.4.in my view, the writ petition merits no consideration, for even if it was to be allowed this court could not pass any order of re-instatement inasmuch as the petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation nor this court can grant any monetary relief to the petitioner, who had not worked at all.5. this court does not decide the matter in which relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. in such circumstances, the impugned orders are not interfered with. 6.the writ application is accordingly dismissed.

Judgment:
1.Navaniti Prasad Singh, J:- The petitioner challenges Annexure 5 and Annexure 12 by which the Governing Body of the private Ayurvedic College dismissed him from service while he was serving as a Principle thereof. Notices were issued to the College and the Governing Body but no one has appeared.

2.Having perused the record and seen the proceeding of the Governing Body, on both occasions notices were sent to the petitioner, who refused to receive them and as such Governing Body took a decision in that regard.

3.It may be noted that challenging the decision of the Governing Body, the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit, which after two years, he withdrew and then filed this writ petition.

4.In my view, the writ petition merits no consideration, for even if it was to be allowed this Court could not pass any order of re-instatement inasmuch as the petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation nor this Court can grant any monetary relief to the petitioner, who had not worked at all.

5. This Court does not decide the matter in which relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the impugned orders are not interfered with.

6.The writ application is accordingly dismissed.