1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 66 of 2005. Judgment reserved on: 15.07.2008. Date of Decision: July 22, 2008. ____________________________________________________________ Chet Ram. Petitioner. Versus Arvind Sharma. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the respondent : None. ______________________________________________________________ Surjnder Singh, J. The petitioner has assailed the order of issuance of process in the complaintNo.59/10 of 2003 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appeared for the respondent for the last three consecutive hearings. I have gone through the record of the case in meticulous details. The petitioner herein was working as a Carpenter in Model Central Jail Nahan impleaded as an accused by the respondent – Superintendent of the said Jail in his complaint filed under Section 500, 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that respondent was also the President of H.P. Jail Employees Welfare & Prevention of Crime Society, Nahan Chapter (JEW&PCS) a non-governmental association, registered under the Societies Act and petitioner herein was holding the post of Treasurer Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 in the said society. That being the Inchrage of the Model Central Jail, the respondent on 16.8.2001 had convened a meeting of the staff of the ‘factory-wing’ of the jail to pursue the progress of pending jobs of different trades. The Carpentry work and other pending and incomplete jobs pertaining to the accused-petitioner were also discussed. The respondent being the head of the institution, made a note in the register as per rules to the effect that the sales tax for the said job shall be imposed by the authorities only once as there is no change in the ownership of the property/beds, which were to be prepared for Kanda Central Jail, Shimla. On this the accused- petitioner got annoyed. Thereafter the respondent herein verified the record pertaining to the job works of the petitioner. The respondent was surprised to note that the said register was prepared by the petitioner in utter violation of the rules. He found various illegalities therein. He was found to have changed the record and had started a new register. On being asked, he did not explain properly, rather he got infuriated. Consequent upon this behaviour of the accused- petitioner, the respondent issued a show cause notice, but instead of submitting a valid explanation he had filed irrelevant reply Annexure- B. Even to the various subsequent show cause notices, the petitioner did not give any cogent explanation, but wrote a letter to the Director General of Prisons (Annexure C-1) making false allegations. He also made false accusation to the Chief Minister, other politicians and the President of the Employees NGOS’ and also to the Media. Thus, he tried to defame the respondent and sought the prosecution under the aforesaid sections. 3 The respondent led the preliminary evidence before the learned trial court and after considering it the learned trial court found a strong prima-facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 500, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, therefore, he was ordered to be summoned vide order dated 1.5.2003, which has been assailed in this petition, on the grounds that the respondent had made the allegations in the complaint in his capacity as President, whereas the allegations are personal, thus not maintainable as there was also no sufficient ground to summon him as an accused. It is also submitted that in the inquiry conducted by the Additional Director General Prisons on the above allegations found the respondent guilty and he was also put under suspension and disciplinary action was initiated. The final report is still awaited. It is true that the allegations in the complaint filed by the respondent is not in his capacity as President of the said Society but are personal in nature and are also not connected with the discharge of duties of the petitioner, where the sanction to prosecute is required. But, the case of the accused-petitioner was that whatever he had done it was as per the instructions of the complainant- respondent. To substantiate this fact, a copy of letter Annexure-C signed by the complainant and explanation to this effect submitted to the A.D.G.P. with respect to the allegations leveled against the petitioner is on record. The report of the preliminary inquiry conducted by the ADGP is Annexure P-3. It was prima-facie established that the respondent got manufactured many items like 4 computer show case, dressing table, beds but the respondent claimed to have got it manufactured by providing his personal material after purchasing it from the market and entries were forged in the register. On preliminary inquiry, it was prima-facie established that factory supervisor Joginder Singh, Master Chet Ram, petitioner herein, had been in close nexus with Arvind Kumar, Superintendent Jail. The present complaint filed by the respondent appears to scuttle or disrupt the departmental enquiry against him to build pressure on the petitioner. In these circumstances, the criminal prosecution instituted against the petitioner for the alleged offences which are prima-facie not made out is uncalled for. Therefore, it is a fit case where the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked, to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order summoning the petitioner as an accused in the complaint is set-aside. Consequently, complaint against him stands dismissed. Send down the records. July 22, 2008. (Surinder Singh) ( Pds ) Judge.