w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Dr. Uday Shankar Mishra v/s State of Jharkhand

    Cr.M.P. No. 326 of 2016

    Decided On, 04 July 2022

    At, High Court of Jharkhand

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

    For the Petitioner: Vikas Pandey, Advocate. For the Respondent: V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.



Judgment Text

1. Heard Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.S.

Sahay, learned counsel for the State.

2. Vide order dated 22.11.2016, notice was issued upon opposite party no.2. Office note suggested that opposite party no.2 left the house where notice was served.

3. Vide order dated 09.02.2022, fresh step for service of notice was directed to be issued upon opposite no.2 on his present and correct address. The matter was again adjourned on 22.02.2022 to find out from the court below about the status of the case and the petitioner was also directed to find out the present and correct address of opposite party no.2 so that substituted notice by way of paper publication will be issued upon opposite party no.2.

4. Vide order dated 06.04.2022, the petitioner was directed to take steps for substituted notice by way of paper publication upon opposite party no.2 where he resides and in that order, it has also been disclosed that the complainant was not taking steps w.e.f. 01.04.2013 in the court below. The notice was issued upon opposite party no.2 by paper publication, which has been brought on record by way of filing supplementary affidavit. Looking into the fact that this matter was taken up after winter vacation and notice upon opposite party no.2 by paper publication was effected, with a view to provide one more opportunity to opposite party no.2, the matter was again adjourned for today i.e. 04.07.2022 vide order dated 06.06.2022.

5. In spite of several opportunities provided to opposite party no.2, he has not appeared. It appears that opposite party no.2 has lost interest as he is also not taking steps in the court below.

6. Accordingly, this petition is being heard today on merit.

7. This petition has been filed for quashing entire criminal proceeding including the cognizance order dated 17.08.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. C 1961 of 2010/T.R. No.591 of 2011, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi.

8. The complaint case was filed by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that the petitioner is the employee of UNICEF. It was further alleged that Manish Mishra, son of the petitioner approached the complainant and Dushyant Kumar on 3rd July, 2010 and provoked them for vacancy under UNICEF in different programmes likely as DULAR programme and Female Condom Project and for this Rs.40,000/- each candidate is required and regarding the said vacancy, an interview was held on 18.08.2010 at Hotel Sai Heritage near over-bridge, Ranchi for DULAR programme and second interview was held on 14.09.2010 for Female Condom Project. It was also alleged that in both interview near about 21 candidates were required between both interviews and a meeting was held on 06.09.2010 for Dular programme and at the time of selection Manish Mishra (accused no.1) took Rs.40,000/- each from the candidates selected and on good faith the selected candidates joined their job. It was further alleged that the candidates were properly doing their jobs and submitted their reports to Manish Mishra and therefore Manish Mishra issued cheques to five candidates namely Vivek Kumar Upadhaya, Kumar Anand Singh, Kamal Kumar Sinha, Arvind Kumar Singh and Abhimanu Singh and not a single paise has been paid to the complainant either for his job or Rs.40,000/- given by him to Manish Mishra. It was also alleged that the cheque which has been issued in favour of Vivek Kumar Upadhaya has been bounced.

9. Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegation is against accused no.1 namely Manish Mishra, who happens to be son of this petitioner and there is no allegation against the petitioner and in spite of that the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has debarred his son from his property in the year 2008 and for that a paper publication was also made, contained in Annexure-2 of this petition.

10. Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State submits that this is the matter, which is required to be considered by the court below.

11. The Court has perused the complaint petition and finds that not even a single word is whispered against this petitioner, who happens to be the father of accused no.1. In the solemn affirmation, the name of the petitioner has not been disclosed. What are the materials against the petitioner, has not been discussed in the order taking cognizance dated 17.08.2011. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, wherein, entire order-sheet of the court below has been annexed. On perusal of those orders, it transpires that opposite party no.2 has not taken any steps in the court below w.e.f. 01.04.2013.

12. In view of the above facts and considering the complaint as well as the solemn affirmation where there is nothing disclosed against the petitioner. To allow the case to continue against the petitioner, will amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, entire criminal pr

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

oceeding including the cognizance order dated 17.08.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. C 1961 of 2010/T.R. No.591 of 2011, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed. 13. It is made clear that this order is passed for the present petitioner only and this Court has not interfered with the cognizance order with regard to other accused. 14. With the above extent, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. 15. Interim order dated 22.11.2016 stands vacated.
O R