CRIMINAL REVISION No.231 OF 2002 ------- Against the order dated 31.1.2002 passed by Shree A.N. Upadhayay, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna, in Complaint Case no.511(C) 2001. ------- 1. INDIRA SINHA, wife of Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinham R/o Mohalla- S.K. Puri, P.S.-S.K. Puri, Distt-Patna, A/P principal, Patna 2. Kalyani Singh, widow of late B.K.Sharma, R/O Kadamkuan, Distt.-Patna, A/P Professor, Patna Training College, Patna 3. Subodh Kumar S/O Ram Sanjiwan Sinha, R/O Mohalla-Patna Training College, Dariyapur, Patna-4, P.S.Kadam Kuan, Distt.- Patna, A/P Instructor Patna Training College------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------(Petitioners) Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bharti Kumari, wife of Shree Akhilelsh D/o Shree Ramji Prasad, R/O SupaulWard No.3, P.S. + Distt.-Supaul------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------(Opp. Parties) --------- For the petitioners : Shre Krishna Pd. Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Adv. Mr. Saket Kumar Singh, Adv. For the O.Ps., : Shree K.P. Gupta, Adv. For the State : Ali Mozaffar, Adv. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH Mandhata Singh,J Prosecution case basing complaint filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 is that she was working as Sewing Instructor on daily wages in Patna Training College for the last 8 to 9 years. She belongs to backward caste. Petitioners are alleged dominating in the institute and were using to say that as she belongs to backward caste she would have to pay Rs.500/- per month otherwise would not be allowed to continue in service. Thereafter, they stopped the payment. Attendance Register was removed from the month of December, 2000. She was not allowed to sign. Petitioner herself was examined as enquiry witness. 2 Further two other witnesses were also examined but cognizance is taken by passing the impugned order for the offence under sections 504, 477A, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Summon was also issued. Legality, correctness and propriety of the same are questioned on the ground that at the relevant time opposite party no.2(complainant) was not working in the institute and she was making pressure for service from back door. She approached the Hon’ble High Court in writ jurisdiction which was decided directing the concerned authorities to consider the representation made by opposite party no.2 which was considered also but opposite party no.2 was not found entitled for the job. This much of the fact or materials was not on record nor was occasion for the petitioners to furnish all these documents. But what is relevant is that opposite party no.2 was working in the institute should be considered carefully. It is duty of the court to prevent entry from back door and none should be allowed to succeed by using force or stringent measure. What care should be taken by the Magistrate, i.e., there should be some material about opposite party no.2’s working in the institute and that was not there. In absence of which there was no occasion of happening of any incident either disallowing opposite party no.2 to sign or to remove the register or to reply protest in abuse. So it is apparent that prima facie no case was made out. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 31.1.2002 passed by Sri A.N. Upadhayay, Judicial 3 Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna, in Complaint Case no.511( C ) of 2001 is set aside. The complaint petition is dismissed. Patna High Court, 9th December,2009 N.A.F.R./Sudip ( Mandhata Singh, J. )