AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.K. Kaushal, J.—Present petition has been directed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking relief of setting aside the order dated 15.7.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in Crime No. 64/2012 (Case No. 6969/2013), by which the trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner u/s 509 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of complaint preferred by the respondent No. 1. On 29.8.2012, respondent No. 1 moved a complaint Annexure A/1 in the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ''the Cr. P.C.'') containing main allegations that on 29.10.2011 petitioner in the capacity of Chairman of ''Board of Education CNI, Jabalpur Diocese'' being the Bishop of Jabalpur, called the respondent No. 1, who was Vice Principal of Christ Church Boys Senior Secondary School, Jabalpur with an ulterior motive and to have some sexual demands. On 26.11.2011, petitioner again called the respondent No. 1 in his office and subjected her to some objectionable gestures.
On 14.1.2012, petitioner further called the respondent No. 1 in his office and informed her regarding vacancy on the post of Principal in the Christ Church Girls Senior Secondary School and assured her selection if she will spend at least two days with him in Forest in Mandla District. The aforesaid proposal has been simply declined by the respondent No. 1. Resultantly, in the April, 2012 post of Principal in Christ Church Girls Senior Secondary School was advertised and was given to some body else and in that continuation post of Vice Principal of boy''s school was also abolished.
On 10th July, 2012 a Press conference was organized to justify the selection of Mr. L. Metthews as Principal and to some extent to explain non selection of the respondent No. 1. At last in August 2012, a written report was forwarded to Mahila Thana, Jabalpur and also to the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur.
Placing reliance on State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that present criminal proceeding has been manifestly attended with malafide and respondent No. 1 has maliciously instituted it with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge on account of her non-selection on the post of Principal and her demotion from the post of Vice Principal to Lecturer. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that SHO, Mahila Thana Jabalpur on 10.9.2012 has filed the complaint for want of substance because appointment of Principal has been made as per rules after observing due procedure. Post of Vice Principal, as a matter of policy, has been abolished every where, hence, the respondent No. 1 was made to work as a Lecturer in the same school. For want of eligibility, she could not be considered and selected for the post of Principal. On 29.6.2013, Mahila Thana, Jabalpur further submitted a report in the Court of CJM, Jabalpur indicating that all female workers of the institution said nothing against the petitioner and did not support the complaint of the respondent No. 1 rather all expressed high regards and appreciation for the attitude and the working of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel further submits that after totally ignoring the aforesaid police reports, on the basis of statement of respondent No. 1 made by her in the Court on 21.1.2013, cognizance of the matter has wrongly been taken by it. A valid Police Khatima report has been wrongly ignored and disbelieved by the Court despite the fact that it contained statements of various ladies employees. In place of quashing the proceedings at the stage u/s 203 of the Cr. P.C., because no sufficient material was available on the record to proceed at that time, trial Court has issued the process u/s 204 of Cr. P.C.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that on the basis of complaint Annexure P/1, police statement of the respondent No. 1 recorded u/s 161 of the Cr. P.C. and her statement recorded in the Court u/s 200 of the Cr. P.C., it is prima facie established that sufficient material and grounds are available worth issuance of process in the matter. Statement of respondent No. 1 recorded at different occasions though suffer from minor discrepancies in respect of indecent assault/proposal and with delay of 6-7 months in making the complaint, but merely on those technical grounds complaint cannot be thrown out of the Court. Want of eligibility due to which the respondent No. 1 cannot become Principal and opinion of other ladies staff members regarding attitude and integrity of the petitioner are the matter of facts and can be established and appreciated during trial. According to the respondent No. 1, she has deliberately victimized by adding a new criteria of 10 years membership of CNI for the first time in the advertisement for selection of Principal and it was done just with a view to keep the respondent No. 1 out of the race because she did not fulfill the bad needs of the petitioner.
Placing reliance on B. Jagdish and Another Vs. State of A.P. and Another, , learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that documents/material from the possession of the petitioner cannot be considered and marshaling and appreciation of evidence is not possible u/s 482 of the Cr. P.C. in the High Court.
In response, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that unquestioned and publicly reliable documents like advertisement for the post etc. can be seen in the High Court u/s 482 of the Cr. P.C. very well.
Considering the contents of complaint, statement of respondent No. 1 u/s 161 of the Cr. P.C. and the statement u/s 200 Cr. P.C., prima facie offence u/s 509 of the IPC against the petitioner should be and can be presumed. Rest of the things are the matter of defence and can be agitated and proved at appropriate stage in that Court. In such a case, to quash the proceeding would amount to abuse of process. It would be better to appreciate it and be decided by the trial Court where the petitioner can raise all the grounds submitted in this petition. Minor discrepancies and delay also can be appreciated by the trial Court at the relevant time and may be and will be decided by the trial Court. There appears no error if the trial Court has taken cognizance at the stage u/s 204 of the Cr. P.C. against the petitioner u/s 509 IPC. For want of merits, petition is dismissed.