IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1441 of 2007
Rana Umesh Kumar Singh @ Rana Umesh Singh.. ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Smt. Seema Hembrom Opp. Party
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon
For the State : Mr. M.B. Lal (A.P.P.)
For the O.P. No.-2 Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra
ORDER
9/03.08.2011
This application has been filed against the order dated
10.09.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag in T. R. No. 1313
of 2007 whereby learned court below took cognizance of the offences
under Sections 467/468/471 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
It is alleged that petitioner, who is Circle Inspector, gave
false report for issuance of false certificate of genealogy of
complainant’s family. It is alleged that petitioner also submitted false
report to the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh on the basis of which
permission for transfer of land accorded . It is submitted by Sri Manoj
Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner is Circle
Inspector and his appointing authority is State Government. Therefore
no court can take cognizance against the petitioner without previous
sanction from the State Government. It is further submitted that
petitioner made query and reported the matter to Additional Collector
in compliance of direction given in Permission Case No. 57 of 2006.
Thus said report will be treated as a finding of Court, hence no private
complaint can be filed against petitioner. It is further submitted that
dispute between complainant and her sister is a civil dispute, thus on
this ground also impugned order is bad.
Sri Awanish Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for
the opposite party submits that from perusal of Annexure-8 it is clear
that appointing authority of petitioner is Secretary of Revenue and
Land Reforms Department. Hence provisions of Section 197 of the Cr.
P.C. have no application in the facts of this case. It is further submitted
that petitioner gave report to the Circle Officer as well as to the
Additional Collector in the capacity of Circle Inspector and while doing
so he had not acted as court. Hence second submission raised on
behalf of petitioner cannot be accepted. It is submitted that allegation
in the complaint petition is that petitioner in connivance of co-accused
Sarita Hembrom gave false report for preparation of genealogy
certificate, thus contention raised that dispute between the parties is
civil dispute appears to be misconceived. It is submitted that there is
no illegality in the impugned order, hence no interference required.
Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the
record of case. Admittedly, petitioner was working as Circle Inspector.
From perusal of Annexure-6 it appears that he was appointed by the
order of Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. From
perusal of Annexure-8 it appears that previously cadre of Circle
Inspector was at the level of Commissionery. However on the demand
of Employees Union, State Government took certain decision and on
the basis of same cadre of Circle Inspector made centralised at the
State level. Annexure-8 makes it clear that appointing authority of
Circle Inspector will be Secretary of Revenue and Land Reforms
Department. Under the aforesaid circumstance, it is clear that even
today, appointing authority of petitioner is Secretary of Revenue and
Land Reforms Department of Government of Jharkhand. Hence under
the law, petitioner can be removed by Secretary of concern
department, for which, approval of State Government is not required.
Under the said circumstance, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has no application in this case.
So far second point raised by Sri Manoj Tandon is
concerned, it is worth mentioning that application of permission for
transfer of land was filed before the Additional Collector, Hazaribag
under the Chhotnagpur Tenancy Act and in that application a report
was called by the Additional Collector regarding the genealogy of
applicant Sarita Hembrom. It is worth mentioning that function of
Additional Collector under Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy
Act is administrative function and not judicial function. Additional
Collector is required to give permission for transfer of land in his
administrative capacity. Thus contention raised by petitioner that he
send report in exercise of power confer by court cannot be accepted.
Moreover even if it is assumed that petitioner gave report on the basis
of order passed by a court it does not give power to petitioner to
submit a false report in connivance of co-accused. Thus second
contention of Sri Manoj Tandon also appears to be misconceived.
It is relevant to mention that allegation against petitioner
that he took illegal gratification from co-accused Sarita Hembrom and
prepared a false report for issuance of genealogy certificate by Circle
Officer. Thus prima-facie I find that offences under Sections
467/468/471 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code is made out.
Hence I find no illegality in the impugned order.
Accordingly this application is dismissed.
(Prashant Kumar, J.)
Binit