Ram Ekbal Chaudhary vs The State of Bihar and Another

Ghanshyam Prasad, J.—Heard the parties. This application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the order taking cognizance dated 30.5.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 7540 of 2005 by S.D.J.M., Bagaha thereby and thereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioner u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

It appears from the record that the petitioner is Block Education Extension Officer-cum-Range Education Officer whereas the complainant is his subordinate and teacher in a school situated in Ramnagar.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on perusal of the complaint petition it would appear that no ingredient of any criminal offence has been disclosed. It is further submitted that the allegation leveled against the petitioner in the complaint petition is manifestly false baseless and unbelievable. The petitioner is a responsible Government Officer and is a man of means. His wife is employee in Lucknow and his son and daughter-in-law are doctors working in America since long. The other family members are also well placed. Therefore, question of taking Rs. 25,000/- as loan from his own subordinate does not arise. It is ultimately submitted that this case is misuse of process of court.

Perused the complaint petition. On perusal of the Complaint petition it appears that it is simply a case of taking loan. There is no ingredient of any criminal offence. It is really surprising how the court below on the basis of such allegation has taken cognizance u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Absolutely no ingredient of Section 420 I.P.C. has been disclosed in the complaint petition.

The other fact is that the petitioner is a man of means. Almost all his family members including wife, son and daughter-in-law are well placed. Taking loan of rupees twenty five thousand from his subordinate apparently appears to be false and concocted. On the basis of such allegation it would not be proper for the court below to take cognizance.

In view of the above facts and circumstances I do not consider it fit and proper to issue notice to Opposite Party No. 2 as on very face of record and allegation the case appears to be mala fide and vexatious which requires to be disposed of after hearing the petitioner and the State alone. In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned order taking cognizance dated 30.5.2006 is hereby quashed.