P.V. Kothaiya vs The State of Jharkhand

Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J.—This petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. arising out of C.K.P. P.S. Case No. 13/2001 dated 15.02.2001 registered under Sections 354/498/376/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the entire criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner-P.V. Kothaiya. The facts in brief is that the informant namely Baby Mahato was appointed as a cleaner on compassionate ground in Railway. She was asked by the Foreman to appear in the office of this petitioner at Chakradharpur and a memo was handed over. When the informant with memo went to the office of petitioner situated at Chakradharpur, she was kept confined in the Chamber and she was molested and her modesty was outraged. This incident took place on 30.1.2001 but considering prestige and dignity, initially the informant kept mum but on 15.02.2001 she lodged a written information with the officer-in-charge, Parsudih Police Station, Jamshedpur and said written/report was forwarded to concerned Police Station i.e. Chakradharpur where it was registered vide C.K.P. P.S. Case No. 13/2001. The petitioner has also filed I.A. No. 270/2013 with a prayer to quash the order dated 21.5.2008 by which cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 498/376/511/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner.

It is contended that the informant has launched a malicious prosecution against the petitioner because desire of transfer expressed by the informant was not attended by the authorities. It is contended that the informant was always creating pressure for getting transfer from Tata Nagar to Kharagpur and for which so many representations had been filed. Since the request of the informant/opposite party was not conceded, she has adopted different method and lodged this case with false allegation against the petitioner and one P.K. Banerjee. It is further pointed out that prior to institution of this case, she was suspended and it was communicated to her.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted, there is no merit in this writ petition. The contention made in the F.I.R. clearly constitute offence for which cognizance has been taken. The Status report submitted by the trial court indicates that charge-sheet has been submitted against accused P.K. Banerjee showing this petitioner as absconder. Cognizance has also been taken and the case has been committed to the court of sessions and now trial is under progress. This petitioner has been declared absconder and permanent warrant of arrest has been issued and proceeding u/s 299 of the Cr.P.C. has also been proceeding ahead against him.

Learned J.C. to S.C.-II further pointed out that prayer for anticipatory bail has also been rejected by this Court.

I have gone through the status report submitted by the trial court and other documents available before me. The status report submitted by the Trial Court clearly indicates that entire case arising out of C.K.P. P.S. Case No. 13/2001 was committed to the court of sessions. Charges have been framed against one of the accused P.K. Banerjee, who was on record. So far as this petitioner is concerned after execution of processes, he has been declared absconder and permanent warrant of arrest has been issued and the trial proceeded u/s 299 Cr.P.C. against him also. The I.O. after recording the evidence of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. had found the occurrence true and submitted charge-sheet against both the accused showing this petitioner as absconder. After perusing the case diary and the materials available cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions and now some of the witnesses have been examined and the trial is under progress. Considering all these aspects, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same stands dismissed. The Trial Court is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law against this petitioner too.