Amit Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Petitioner, in this criminal miscellaneous petition, appeared in person and argued his case. He has challenged the order dated 04.02.2019 passed by

the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 1035 of 2018, by which the Court was pleased to dismiss the complaint lodged

against the opposite parties under Sections 420, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, he has challenged the revisional order passed by the

Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Cr. Revision No.106 of 2019.

I had heard the petitioner at length, who had also made some irrelevant submissions, which have got nothing to do with the facts of this case, which

need not be recorded in the order.

Petitioner, in person, submits that since offence is made out, the Court should have taken cognizance of the offence and thereafter, should have

issued process against all the accused persons named in the complaint petition. He submits that the petitioner was forced to take admission in I.I.M.,

Lucknow, but, he was deliberately made to fail in the course, thus, was not allowed to continue there. He submits that ultimately, his employer also

removed him from service. He submits that all these actions were malafide and is a part of larger conspiracy against the petitioner, which needs to be

inquired into and accused should be prosecuted. He submits that he was monetarily cheated as his course fee was forfeited. He submits that the Court

of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, without considering the criminal aspect, has, in a mechanical manner, dismissed the complaint.

I have gone through the complaint petition. There are 17 accused persons in the complaint petition. They are â€" IIM, Lucknow, its Directors,

Chairman of the Governing Body and Professors. Further, the petitioner has also made his employer Tata Steel Ltd., its Managing Director, Executive

Officers and other Officers as an accused. It is the case of the complainant that he was working in Tata Steel Limited and the Officers of the Tata

Steel Limited, in connivance with the officials of IIM hatched a plan to extort money from the complainant-petitioner, as he was interested in higher

studies and appeared in CAT. It is his case that though he got chance in IIM Rohtak for PGPM Programme, he was compelled to change his institute

from Rohtak to IIM, Lucknow. He stated that because of coercion, he changed his institute and got admitted in IIM, Lucknow as his name appeared

in the 4th list. It is stated that he spent Rs.8 lakh to get admission after taking education loan. It is alleged by him that one Mr. Sandeep Dhir

influenced the Professors of IIM, Lucknow. It is alleged that on the direction of the Governing Body of IIM, Lucknow, Dr. Jamshed Ji Irani, the

complainant was made to fail in the examination, so that he can join his job again. It is the case of the complainant that by hatching a conspiracy, he

was given 0 (zero) in the subject QAM I (Quantitative Analysis for Management). He wanted to know the reasons of his failure, but, the reason was

not supplied. His case is that he was forced to rejoin his job and the accused persons tried not to allow the complainant to pursue the studies. It is the

case of the complainant that inspite of giving correct answers, marks were illegally deducted and paper was wrongly checked. It is stated that he was

again illegally terminated in Term II with ulterior motive and he was made to fail twice. It is his case that he demanded answer sheets, which were

also not handed over. His email was blocked and he was asked to leave the campus and the hostel. He further contended that he was chargesheeted

because of absence from job. The complainant sought to resign, but, the authorities sat tight over his resignation letter and only on much persuasion,

the same was accepted. It is the case of the complainant that as he was not allowed to continue his studies in IIM. His employer Tata Steel Limited in

connivance with IIM, Lucknow misappropriated Rs.8 lakh and destroyed the career prospects of the complainant. Aforesaid is the sum and substance

of the complainant.

Considering the aforesaid complaint, the Court below, after making an enquiry, holding that there is nothing on record to constitute offence under

Sections 420, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, dismissed the complaint. Revision application filed by the petitioner challenging the said order was also

dismissed.

When I go through the complaint, the order passed by the revisional Court and the order of the Magistrate, I find that no ingredients of offence

under Sections 420, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out from the allegations in the complaint. From the arguments of the petitioner, itself, it is

clear that the petitioner failed twice in his course, which he was studying at IIM, Lucknow and, thus, he was not allowed to continue. It is the case of

the petitioner that he was forced to change his institute. This also cannot be an offence under the Indian Penal Code. Further, on query during

argument, petitioner submitted that because of unauthorized absence, petitioner was chargesheeted. He also submitted that now he is also not an

employee of the company. The fact of issuing of chargesheet and his resignation also finds place in the complaint petition. From the entire complaint

petition, I find no materials, which attract any of the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. No one induced

the petitioner. His Rs.8 lakh towards course fee was exhausted as because he failed in his course for which none of the opposite parties can be

blamed. In the entire complaint petition, there is no whisper to suggest what was the conspiracy hatched by any person to cheat this petitioner. With

an oblique motive, this complaint has been filed, which has rightly been dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. Thus, I find no merit in

this criminal miscellaneous petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed.