Jamshedpur, Nov. 12: A criminal petition has been filed against a judicial staff at the court of chief judicial magistrate, district court, for signing on behalf of the presiding officer and accepting a “chargesheet” submitted by the police on a public holiday.

Prasanta Kumar Paul, an accused in a dowry case, filed the petition against office clerk Digvijay Pathak on November 4.

The petition is pending with the court of the chief judicial magistrate, P.K. Maitra.

The court is yet to issue showcause notices against Pathak or the former in-charge of CJM court, Arun Kumar Chaturvedi, who is now posted at the Tenughat subdivision court in Bokaro and on whose behalf Pathak is accused of signing the chargesheet.

In 2003, one Manoj Kumar Bhakat had lodged an FIR at Sidhgora police station against Chhaya Devi, Sushanta Kumar Paul, Mukut Chandra Kumbhkar and Prasanta Kumar Paul, accusing them of torturing his daughter Pratima for dowry.

The case is pending with court of second additional district magistrate.

Pratima’s husband Prasanta has alleged that Pathak, then office clerk in the CJM court, illegally wrote the order of cognisance on June 22, 2003. “It was an official holiday (Sunday) and in the absence of the in-charge, he signed the orders.” Pathak is now posted as a clerk in a munsif court in Jamshedpur.

On the order copy of CJM court, dated June 22, 2003, it was written that on the basis of the chargesheet and case diary, a prima facie case is registered against the accused. “Hence, the cognisance is taken against the accused under 498A, 313 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act and the case is transferred to the court of SDJM, Jamshedpur, for trial,” the order copy reads.

According to the petition filed by Paul, Pathak and two of his judicial colleagues, Anil Jha and Satish Tiwary, admitted to putting up their signatures whenever there was no presiding officer present in the court, and “there is no illegality about it”.

Pathak said he is aware of the petition filed against him at the CJM court.

“I was working as an additional staff of the court at that time. We put exactly that date on papers when a chargesheet arrives at the court and file the documents of same date for official record,” he said.

He, however, refused to comment on whether in-charge of CJM court had directed him or written the order himself.

“When the court will seek explanation from me, I will answer this question,” Pathak said.