IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH iS-W-'No. '1 12007 • -^ •>! • .^s1',-^ ..s-fSSi fB^SS' APPLICANT: jr ..- ^ ,/• Yaminikant Verma, S/o Late Shri .^y^" ..s. ' —""— .——-^ ^ ^-^y^ •".••'.^ • ^.'•-'' <••' .»J"V ^ " ^^"'. "•' ^^' .••'. -y.^ v^ .-^ (,?;•• ^ NON-APPLICANTS/ COMPLAINANT M.L. Verma, Aged about 6^years, ®,_. _ .. „. 'o Sarju Bagicha, Ma'sanganj, Bilaspur District Bilaspur [C.G.] VERSUS ShakilMohammed,^4<-('ys •'<^ fiV S/o Shri Noor Moharamed, R/o Baiga Para Sakti Thana 8s Tehsil Sakti District Janjgir-Champa [C.G.] III APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BU-ASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P.No.11 of 2007 APPLICANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Yaminikant Verma Shakil Mohammed Shri Prateek Sharma counsel for applicant. Shri H.S. Patel counsel for respondeat. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (22.03.2010) Instant petition has been preferred by the applicant against the order dated 30.10.2006 passed byAdditional Sessions Judge, Sakti in Criminal Revision No. 223/2006 confirming the order dated 10.1.2006 passed by the trial Court rejecting his application filed under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Applicant also prays for quashment of the entire proceedings pending against him in the trial Court. 2. Factsof the case in short are that on 17.5.2001 the respondent had filed a complaint case before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti against the present applicant and one Ashok Singh alleging that pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.12.2000 (Annexure A-2) issued under the authority of the applicant who was working as Divisional Engineer, Administration and Commerce, Rs. 2000 were taken from him by Ashok Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer which is contrary to the advertisement itself. It is further stated in the complaint that Rs. 1,000 extra had been demanded by said Ashok Singh by way of demand note which being illegal and amounting to criminal misconduct makes him liable for the offences punishable under sections 166, 167, 415, 417, 418, 420, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the present applicant is that he was working as the superior officer of ^(tf»««(,,^ .2— Ashok Singh and as the advertisement was issued under his authority, he has committed an offence. 3. Based on the complaint of the respondent herein and the statements of his witnesses cognizance was taken by learned Magistrate on 30.11.2002 against the applicant only in respect of the offence under Section 166 IPC and not against Ashok Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer. dfr 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that at the relevant time, the applicant was working as Divisional Engineer; Administration and Commerce, Bilaspur and on his instructions advertisement (Annexure A-2) was issued on 13.12.2000. He submits that in the advertisement it was categorically mentioned that in respect of seven urban areas, Rs. 1,000 would be charged till 31.12.2000. He submits that it wasthe fault on the part of said Ashok Singh that he had demanded Rs. 1,000 for providing the telephone connection. Though, Ashok Singh had demanded Rs. 2,000 by way of demand note, no amount was given to him pursuant thereto. He submits that for seven urban areas Rs. 2,000 were charged and only on account of this there appears to have been some confusion. He submits that the said advertisement was issued pursuant to the directions issued by the superior officer posted at Bhopal on 22.11.2000 vide (Annexure A-1). He submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, no allegation has been made against the present applicant except that the advertisement was issued showing his designation. He submits that being an obedient officer of the department, after getting the instructions from his superior just to attract more customers, an advertisement was issued stipulating certain conditions and if any condition has been misunderstood by any junior official, it would not be construed to be an offence. He submits that if someone has committed an offence it would be Ashok Singh and not the present applicant. He submits that the ingredients of Section 166 IPC are not attracted to the act attributed against the applicant. w — ^ —. 5. On the other hand counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has been mentally tortured and an attempt has been made by the applicant to cheat him. He submits that the applicant being a public servant was fully aware of the correct factual position in permitting the officer subordinate to him to charge extra money and he has thus committed an offence under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Section 166 ofthe Indian Penal Code reads as under: "166. Public servant disobeying law, wifh intent to cause injury to any person.- Whoever, b'eing a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both." If the facts of the case in hand are seen in the light of the aforesaid provision, by no stretch of imagination the applicant can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 166 IPC. It is apparent from the complaint that advertisement (Annexure A-2) was issued showing the name of the applicant. It also appears from the record that there was some confusion in the mind of Ashok Singh and therefore he had issued a demand note of Rs. 2000 but it is not a case where any additional amount was charged by him defrauding the respondent herein. Present is a case where on record Rs.2000 were asked by Ashok Singh but the same has not been paid to him and it was simply a demand. Further more, language of the advertisement has created some confusion in the mind of Ashok Singh and except that no criminal liability can be fastened on the applicant especially in view of the fact that advertisement Annexure A-2 was issued by the applicant pursuant to the instructions issued -l:^.t ~Q— by his superior officer of Bharat Sanchar Nigam, Bhopal, on 22.11.2000. 7. The record does not disclose anything against the applicant to bring his act within the purview of Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. Abuse of process of the Court cannot be permitted to exist. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. Entire proceedings pending against the applicant in the Court of learned Magistrate are hereby quashed. Pritinker Diwaker Judge j'uj