BIMAL CHARAN PAL Vs. YOGESH MUDGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the complainant has filed this revisionagainst the order dated 24.2.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak, Balasore in Criminal Revision No.78 of 1994 setting aside the order dated6.10.1994 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore in ICC Case No.180 of 1994 takingcognizance against the present opposite party no.1-accused.

(2.) IT appears from the record that the son of the complainant-complaint wasinvolved in a criminal case. During investigation of the said criminal case, the presentopposite party no.1 who was a Police Officer posted at Baliapal Police Station called thecomplainant to the police station and assaulted him. Being aggrieved by the said actionof the said opposite party no.1, the petitioner filed ICC Case No.180 of 1994 before thelearned S.D.J.M., Balasore. Learned S.D.J.M. recorded the initial statement of thecomplainant and also another witness examined by the complainant who corroboratedthe statement of the complainant and considering the same, he took cognizance ofoffence under Section 323, IPC on 6.10.1994 against opposite party no.1 and issuedsummon to the accused. The accused challenged the said order before the learnedSessions Judge, Balasore in Criminal Revision No.78 of 1974. The Sessions Court heldthat the offence alleged to have been committed by the police officer had close nexuswith the due discharge of his official duties and without prior sanction as provided underSection 197, Cr.P.C, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate was notsustainable. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the cognizance ofoffence taken by the learned S.D.J.M.