AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. A.M.Bora, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. D.K.Baidya and Ms. C.Choudhury on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. S.Sen
Gupta, learned Addl. Sr. GA on behalf of the respondent No. 1.
The petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
That it is humbly stated that the instant Petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks the
quashing of the impugned Order dated 26/04/17; the charge-sheet No. 18/2017 dated 05/04/17 and FIR dated 30/06/16 in
connection with GR Case No. 64 (S)/ 2017 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong u/s 341/186/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, which arose out of Laitumkhrah P.S.Case No. 142(6)/2016. The aforesaid FIR was lodged by the then Chief
Vigilance of NEEPCO namely Satish Chandra Verma (Respondent No. 2) alleging that the Petitioner along with Sri P.K. Jaiswal,
Executive Director (Security), NEEPCO, Shillong; Sri P.C. Pankaj, Chairman & Managing Director, NEEPCO, Shillong and other
unknown persons locked and sealed the official chamber of a vigilance officer namely Sri Abhishek Kumar, thereby restraining the
informant as the CVO to visit any part of vigilance offices.
In the humble understanding of the petitioner the FIR from which the instant case arises is a false and fabricated one lodged in
furtherance of malicious and vindictive intentions of the informant as there are departmental proceedings/inquiries against him being
carried out by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, in which the Petitioner and the other accused persons did the needful.
Further, there has been grave procedural irregularities in the instant case as mandatory prosecution sanction from Government as
mandated by Section 197 of CrPC has not been obtained by the investigating agency and moreover the provision of Section 186
CrPC has been flouted with thereby violating Section 195 (1) (a) of the CrPC. Further, the offences under the alleged sections
341/186/34 are also not made out from the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and
Order vide which process has been issued have caused grave prejudice to the Petitioner. Hence, this petition.
Mr. A.M.Bora, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the chamber of one Mr. Abhishek Kumar, an employee of
NEEPCO, was locked by a Security Officer as directed by the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Kumar was also put under suspension, which was
subsequently withdrawn and he is continuing in his service. But strangely, one Mr. Satish Chandra Verma, a superior officer of Mr. Abhishek
Kumar lodged an FIR with the Laitumkhrah P.S. alleging that he was restrained from entering the chamber of Mr. Abhishek Kumar thereby
disturbing the regular duties. On the basis of that FIR, a case was lodged and the matter was charge-sheeted under Sections 341/186/34 IPC.
Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner also pointed out the relevant portion of the charge-sheet which is at page 13 of the lower court case record.
The same is reproduced herein below:
The investigation of the instant case has been shown as follows:
During the course of investigation the complainant/victim was examined u/s 161 CrPC.
On 8/06/17 the Notice U/S 41 A CrPC was served to Shri P K Jaiswal (CMD) of NEEPCO, Shillong and Shri S B Borgohain,
Director (Personnel), NEEPCO, Shillong in connection with the instant case but as Shri B S Borgohain, was not available he could
not receive the Notice.
On 12th July, 2016 Shri P K Jaiswal (CMD) of NEEPCO, Shillong comply with the Notice. Accordingly, he was examined and
was allowed to go as he co-operated with the investigation. And on examining him he has informed that Mr. Abhishek Kumar was
put under suspension for official reasons on 22nd June, 2016 and on the same date office chamber was also sealed.
On 29/07/16 Shri P C Pankaj and Shri Satyabrata Borgohain was also examined Mr. Abhishek Kumar was put under suspension
as he did not comply with the order of transfer to DHEP, Nagaland. Accordingly, the chamber was sealed and locked whom they
have directed Shri Armeet Singh, DGM, (Security) to do the necessary action.
During the course of investigation it is found that Shri Abhishek Kumar was suspended by the concerned authority but till date he
did not received the suspension order.
During further course of investigation it is found that the chamber of Abhishek Kumar was sealed and locked by Subedar P S Mao
under the direction of Shri Armeet Singh Sondhi, DGM (Security) on 22/6/2016. Further, Shri Armeet Singh Sondhi was also been
directed by Shri S.B.Borgohain, Director (Personnel), NEEPCO, Shillong.
On 1st July, 2016 the sealed chamber of Shri Abhishek Kumar was unlocked by Subedar P.S.Mao in presence of Shri Kangkan
Sarma, Sr. Manager (C), Vigilance, Shri B.S.Shekhawat, DGM (Security), Shri F.H.Choudhury, Security Dept., Shri Ridip Gogoi,
ES to CVO, NEEPCO and Shri Satya Kumar Kalita, Chowkider, HR Deptt.
Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner prayed that is it a fit case where the High Court should interfere for the interest of justice and to save the
petitioner from unnecessary harassment.
In reply, Mr. S.Sen Gupta, learned Addl. Sr. State counsel submitted that prosecution sanction was not necessary and even without prosecution
sanction, the trial can proceed.
After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and after going through the charge-sheet, I do not find any
sufficient materials available for trial. What appears with the whole case is that is has been build up on some personal interest and ego and
ultimately, an FIR was lodged. I also cannot understand why the FIR has been filed by a person who was not affected at all by locking the
chamber of Mr Abhishek Kumar. However, law has never barred any person to file an FIR on behalf of others, but that is also to be considered in
special circumstances where the actual victim is not in a position to file the FIR for different reasons. It is not the sacred duty of the Court to drag a
person unnecessarily or to encourage frivolous litigation Therefore, I am of the considered view that proceeding with this case is not wanted as the
matter has already been settled by the parties and it was just a mere incident. Consequently, I find that it is a fit case that needs to be quashed, so
by invoking the power under Section 482 CrPC, I hereby quash the trial of GR Case No. 64 (S)/2017.
With this observation and direction, the criminal petition is allowed and stands disposed of. Registry is directed to send the LCR along with a
copy of this judgment and order.