ORDER
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.
1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 8-12-2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 93/1999, whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that the opposite party No. 2, who is complainant in complaint Case No. 93/1999, filed the aforesaid complaint case against the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner was working as Incharge Head Mistress, Indira Gandhi Girls School and in that capacity she invited tenders for sale of Ambassador Station Wagon car bearing registration No. BHM 8800 and the same was published in Daily Newspaper” Hindustan” on 25-11 -1995. The opposite party No. 2 complainant also filed JV/KV/Jha515/2004/GSD/MPP/MAD/33191/2004 his tender along with a Bank Draft of Rs. 2000/-. In the said tender three other persons had also participated and they had also deposited security money of Rs. 2000/-. It is stated that petitioner had not returned the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2000/-. to the complainant opposite party No. 2 till date and a legal notice to that effect was sent to the petitioner and complainant opposite party No. 2 also met her whereupon she told the complainant opposite party No. 2 that since a legal notice has been served so he may take back the money in Court itself, whereas she has returned the security money of others. It is further alleged that petitioner-accused, being in connivance with one Nagendra Jain, sold the car to Nagendra Jain, who happens to be stationery supplier of the school. The complainant opposite party No. 2 asked her to again bid or invite tender for the sale of vehicle but she refused because she was In connivance with aforesaid Nagendra Jain. Hence a case under Section 420 IPC is made out.
3. The, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-aconsed submitted that the complaint petition being Complaint Case No. 93/1999 has been filed with a view to malign the petitioner and there is no truth in the allegation so made. It is further submitted that the draft for Rs. 2000/-. was deposited in the name of Principal of the said school and the entire transaction was done by the petitioner in the capacity of the Principal of the aforesaid school and, therefore, she did her duty in due discharge of her official duty and, therefore, she is entitled to get protection under Section 197 Cr. P. C. and, therefore, order taking cognizance is not legal in the eye of law. It is further submitted that she was Incharge Head Mistress and as per order of higher authority tender was invited and there were other members of the committee such as Jail Superintendent. District Transport Authority and members of the tenders committee and in their presence tenders were opened and it was allotted to the highest bidder and the persons whose tenders were not accepted were asked to take back the security money but this tenderer did not receive security money with oblique motive and further that police after investigation submitted final form and as such, no case is made out against the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No. 2 submitted that the learned Court below, after holding enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C, has taken cognizance on the basis of evidence adduced by the witnesses in the enquiry in the enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. and found a prima facie case against the petitioner and, therefore, the order does not require any interference.
5. On perusal of facts stated on behalf of the sides, it appears that a complaint case was filed by the complainant opposite party No. 2 against the petitioner .before learned C.J.M. which was sent to P.S. concerned under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. and police after investigation submitted final form stating therein that this case has been lodged with a view to malign the petitioner, but complainant filed a protest petition and this was treated as a complaint case and an enquiry was held under Section 202, Cr.P.C. in which some witnesses were examined and on the basis of statement of those witnesses in the enquiry, cognizance has been taken. But, from perusal of record, it also appears that petitioner performed her duties as Incharge Head Mistress and in presence of other members of the tender committee, tenders were opened and highest bidder was allotted the vehicle and the case appears to have been filed with oblique motive.
6. From the complaint petition, it appears that O.P. No. 2 complainant had requested the petitioner for holding a fresh bid but the reasons for holding such bid and whatever mistakes pointed out by the complainant O.P. No. 2 which made the com plainant O.P. No. 2 to seek a fresh bid, have not been mentioned, therefore, the petitioner refused to hold a fresh bid. So, this case appears to have been filed with oblique motive because petitioner was not the sole member of the tender committee, but there were other members also when committee is formed and if there were any bunglings in holding bid, then this petitioner was not only responsible but others were also responsible and, therefore, this case has been filed with ulterior motive.
7. In that view of the matter, this application is allowed and order dated 8-12-2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 93/99 is hereby quashed.