Rama Shankar Mishra @ Rama Sankar … vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 25 August, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.9523 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -220 Year- 2013 Thana -GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District- GAYA

Rama Shankar Mishra @ Rama Sankar Pandey S/o Late Laljee Pandey at present
Block Supply Officer, Gurua, P.S. Gurua, District Gaya
…. …. Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Shusma Devi W/o Raj Kumar Sao Resident of Gurua, P.O.+P.S. Gurua District
Gaya
…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. T.N. Thakur, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 25-08-2017

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal

proceeding in Complaint Case No.C220/13/2650/13 as his discharge

petition dated 10.03.2015 was rejected by the court of Additional

Sessions Judge-V, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.102 of 2014.

3. Brief fact stated in the complaint is that the accused,

the Block Supply Officer, Gurua sexually exploited her for a year on

the promise of issuing her a licence of a PDS shop. On 03.10.2012 the

complainant learnt that her application for allotment of PDS shop was

rejected but again on assurance of issuing her the said licence, the

accused continued to sexually exploit her. Ultimately she filed Gurua

P.S. Case No.102 of 2012 under Section 376 IPC but up-till-now the

police has not taken action against him so she filed the complaint.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9523 of 2014 dt.25-08-2017

2 /6

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was the Block Supply Officer, Gurua. This is well known to

the complainant that he was not the licensing authority rather the

licensing authority is the S.D.M. The petitioner had only submitted

the report to the S.D.M. whether there is any requirement of PDS shop

in view of the application submitted by the complainant and the

petitioner submitted enquiry report to the SDM, Sherghati that there is

no vacancy of PDS shop considering the ratio of the population in the

Panchayat and the existing PDS shops. On that basis the S.D.M.,

Sherghati rejected the application filed by the complainant by order

dated 03.10.2012. Being aggrieved by the report submitted by the

petitioner relating to no vacancy for allotment of new PDS shop in the

area, the complainant filed a false police case and police conducted

the investigation and finding the allegation false submitted final form.

She also filed a petition relating to the same allegation in the Janta

Darbar of the District Magistrate, Gaya. The S.D.M., Sherghati

enquired and submitted his detailed report, annexed as Annexure-4,

finding the allegation false. The mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the

complainant too had not supported the case and that report was

accepted by the district administration. It is further submitted by

learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a government

servant and launching a prosecution in connection with the discharge
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9523 of 2014 dt.25-08-2017

3 /6

of his duty, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. has not been obtained

as the same is mandatory. It is a malicious case lodged only for the

reason that petitioner submitted a report against the complainant. The

Magistrate had all the materials before him, namely the final report

submitted by the police in Gurua P.S. Case No.102 of 2012 registered

for same offence, the detailed enquiry report of the S.D.M., Sherghati

relating to the same allegation and report submitted by the petitioner

not recommending licence to the complainant on her application for

issuance of a licence for a PDS shop as well as order dated 03.10.2012

of the S.D.M. rejecting complainant’s application for issuance of

licence for P.D.S. shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed

reliance in the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Limited vs. Special Judicial

Magistrate, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 in which the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal

case is a serious matter and the criminal law cannot be set into motion

as a matter of course. In the present case the learned Magistrate has

also not applied his mind to the facts of the case and the materials

available before him and these materials are not sufficient for the

complainant to succeed in bringing the charge home against the

accused. The complainant is a married lady of 45 years of age and

runs an NGO besides this there is no medical evidence. All these facts

were not considered and mechanically cognizance was taken and even
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9523 of 2014 dt.25-08-2017

4 /6

discharge petition was rejected. It is next submitted that there is

allegation of sexual exploitation by the petitioner on the pretext of

providing her a licence for the PDS shop but the petitioner is not

licence issuing authority.

5. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal

of the records, this Court finds that the petitioner at the relevant point

of time was a Block Supply Officer, Gurua. The complainant applied

for licence for a PDS shop before the S.D.M., Sherghati. A report

regarding requirement of PDS shop in the locality for which she

desired for running a P.D.S. shop was called for from Block Supply

Officer, this petitioner, he accordingly, submitted the report dated

07.09.2012 that there is no further requirement of any PDS shop in the

said Gram Panchayat and on that very basis the S.D.M., Sherghati

rejected the application of the complainant vide Annexure-3.

Thereafter the present complaint has been filed, she also filed a

complaint in the Janta Darbar of the District Magistrate, Gaya and the

same was enquired by the S.D.M., Sherghati. The detailed enquiry

report of the S.D.M., Sherghati is Annexure-4 and he finds the

allegation false, the report further reveals that the mother-in-law and

sister-in-law of the complainant denied the allegation. The

complainant had earlier lodged a police case also relating to the same

offence being Gurua P.S. Case No.102 of 2012 and police after
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9523 of 2014 dt.25-08-2017

5 /6

investigation found the case false. All these materials were before the

learned Magistrate while taking cognizance in the matter but the order

of cognizance shows that these materials on record were not

considered so there is no application of mind as no reasoning has been

assigned and in mechanical way cognizance was taken by the court

below. In the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Limited vs. Special Judicial

Magistrate (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held:

“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is
a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a
matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only
two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have
the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate
summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to
the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to
examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the
evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would
that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge
home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent
spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before
summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully
scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put
questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to
find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then
examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the
accused.”

6. In view of the said proposition the Magistrate requires

to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may

himself put question to the complainant and the witnesses to elicit
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9523 of 2014 dt.25-08-2017

6 /6

answers, the truthfulness of the allegation or otherwise thereafter to

examine if any offence is prima facie committed by the accursed or

not. In the present case the materials brought before this Court shows

that the present complaint is maliciously filed by the complainant so

its continuation would be an abuse of the process of the court so the

entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.C220/13/2650/13

inclusive of order taking cognizance and other subsequent orders

passed in Sessions Trial No.102 of 2014, pending in the court of

learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Gaya is hereby quashed.

7. In the result, this application is allowed.

(Arun Kumar, J.)
S.Kumar/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 01.09.2017
Transmission 01.09.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *