(1.) In this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code) petitioner prays for quashing of the cognizance order dated 27/4/2000 in I.C.C. No. 34 of 1999 of the Court of J.M.F.C., Khallikote on the ground of false and frivolous case having been instituted against the petitioner because he was the Officer-in-charge of Khallikote Police Station by the date of occurrence and had taken action in Khallikote P.S. Case No. 100 of 1999 registered inter alia under Section 395, I.P.C. where the husband of the opposite party is an accused along with others. His further ground is that sanction under Sec. 197 of the Code is needed to prosecute him. Complainant is the opposite party in this case.
(2.) It appears from the complaint that allegation has been made against the petitioner on the ground that on 21/8/1999 at about 7 P.M. petitioner forcibly trespassed into her residence on the plea of search of one Rajesh Nail (a criminal involved in several cases} and when opposite party pleaded her ignorance about acquaintance with such Rajesh Naik, as alleged in the complaint she was abused with obscene language and also the petitioner made her naked by pulling her saree. Learned Magistrate undertook an inquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code in which four witnesses were examined. The first three witnesses gave their statement relating to outraging of her modesty and the fourth witness made statement regarding payment of bribe by him to the petitioner. After perusing such statement, along with the initial statement of the opposite party on 27/4/2000 learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence without considering as to whether a sanction was necessary as required under Sec. 197 of the Code when one of the witnesses in course of enquiry told that the petitioner was in uniform.
(3.) It is stated by the petitioner that since the opposite party, her husband and several other villagers resisted the search and arrest of the wanted criminals, therefore, Khallikote P.S. Case No. 100 of 1999 has been registered against them for the offence under Secs. 147. 148, 395, 2 16(A), 364, 353, 333, 307, 149. I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act and this case has been foisted on 15/9/1999 as a counter blast to the said proceeding.