Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the complaint disclosed the essential ingredients of the alleged criminal offences and justified interference with the order dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The complaint rested on allegations that the petitioner had been denied promotion and that departmental and tribunal findings supported her grievance. The order dismissing the complaint found that the allegations did not disclose any common intention, conspiracy, demand of money, corruption, false evidence, or criminal breach of trust. It was also noted that the offences earlier covered by Sections 161 to 165A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 stood repealed by Section 31 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and that the mere fact that promotion was denied or later challenged successfully did not by itself establish criminal liability. The decisive requirement was some nexus between the complained-of conduct and a criminal intent or criminal act, which was absent.
Conclusion: The complaint did not disclose a prosecutable criminal offence, and the dismissal under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere arbitrariness or illegality in departmental action does not, a discernible criminal intent or the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence, convert the conduct into a criminal offence.