Ashwini Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CR.M.P. No. 1079 of 2016 Ashwini Kumar, S/o. Late Lakshmicharan, Aged About 57 Years, The Then General Manager (Town Administration), Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai. Presently Chief Executive Officer Of Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, District Sundergarh, Odisha. R/o. 13/9, Priyadarshini Nagar (West), Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil & District -Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
1.
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2.
Superintendent Of Police, Durg, District -Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3.
Station House Officer, Police Station -Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
4.
K.N. Premnath, S/o. Shri K.P. Nair, R/o. Shop No.153, Sector-10, Zonal Market, Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg, Chhattisgarh. -----Respondents For Petitioner :
Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate For State/respondent No.1 to3 :
Mr. Ashish Shukla, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.4 :
Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 07/07/2017 Heard.
1.
This petition has been brought by the petitioner with prayer to exercise inherent jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Page No.2 2.
It is submitted that, petitioner is working as Chief Executive Officer of Rourkela Steel Plant belonging to Steel Authority of India Limited, hence he is public servant as defined under Indian Penal Code. On the date of incident on 04.07.2011, petitioner was posted as General Manager in department of General Administration of Bhilai Steel Plant and was performing his official work. One Sanjay Pundir, Town Inspector, Police Station Sector -6 Bhilai, came into his office and started abusing and threatening him with reference to a letter sent by the office of Inspector General of Police for repairing of bungalow allotted to I.G. Police. Respondent No.4 assaulted the petitioner by throwing paperweight, which fell on the table glass and damaged it.
Petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg against the respondent No.4. on the basis of which, order dated 23.08.2011 (Annexure P/3) was passed to register FIR against the respondent No.4 and investigate the case. Similarly, respondent No.4 also filed an application U/s. 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner on the basis of which, the Court has ordered to concerned Police Station to register FIR and investigate the case. Petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 04.08.2011 before the Sessions Court in revisional jurisdiction. This revision along with other revision petition presented by the respondent No.4 were decided by a common order dated 27.09.2012 in which revisoin petition including the revision petition of petitioner were dismissed.
Page No.3 3.
It is submitted that petitioner is public servant and he can not be prosecuted without prior sanction of the competent authority as per requirement under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.. The incident took place in the office chamber of the petitioner, where he was performing his official duties. Further petitioner has claimed his innocence and pleaded false implication and on these grounds, it is prayed that inherent power may be exercised to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
4.
Counsel for the respondent No.1, 2 & 3 opposes the argument submitted on behalf of the petitioner.
5.
Counsel for the respondent No.4 has submitted that the petitioner is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and has placed his reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of Punjab State Warehousing Corp. Vs. Bhushan Chander, reported in (2016) 13 SCC 44 in which it was held that protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not available to the officer of government companies or the public undertakings referring to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Hadi Raja Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 1945.
6.
As per the contents of the petition, it appears that criminal case bearing Crime No.422/2011 was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District - Durg and there is no information that any prosecution has been initiated before the trial Court till date.
Page No.4 7.
Even if it is assumed that Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is applicable with respect to the petitioner, this provisions does not puts a bar for lodging of FIR and investigating the case. The bar is only with respect to taking of cognizance, if the case is clearly covered under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., apart from that objection to taking cognizance of offence can also be raised before the trial Court before the trial is initiated.
8.
Hence for these reason, no substance is found in this petition and it is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Balram