PRAHALLAD CHARAN SAHOO Vs. MD IMDAD SARIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482. Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the proceeding in I.C.C. No. 4/1999 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Surada.

(2.) FROM the record it appears that the aforesaid complaint was filed by the opp. party on the allegation that the complainant is the owner of the Telephone bearing No. 77182. He received a bill for the month of September. 1997 for an amount of Rs. 769/ -which according to him was due to excess meter reading and wrong billing. Accordingly, he intimated the Accounts Officer, Berhampur T.D.M. for necessary verification and rectification of the bill. No action having been taken at the end of the Accounts Officer and the telephone line having been disconnected, the complainant along with his brother went to the telephone exchange to enquire about the wrong billing and the disconnection. The petitioner is stated to be working at that time as J.T.O., in Surada Telephone Exchange: When the opp. party along with his brother met the petitioner and enquired about the disconnection, it is alleged that the petitioner abused them in filthy language and also stated that he could enhance the bill from Rs. 40,000/ - to Rs. 50,000/ -. It is further alleged that the petitioner suddenly caught hold of the shirt collar of the complainant and dragged him out and threatened to assault. Initial statement of the complainant was recorded and an enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. was taken up where the brother of the complainant who is said to be present at the time of the incident was also examined. On consideration of materials, the learned Magistrate by order dated 6.4.1999 took cognizance of offences under Sections 294 and 233 of the Penal Code.

(3.) SHRI Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the opp. party submitted that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. this Court is not required to assess the evidence collected during enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. and come to a different conclusion. If a prima facie case is made out. This Court should decline to exercise the inherent power. He further submitted that act alleged has no nexus with discharge for official duty and therefore, sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. is not at all required and the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance in absence of an order of sanction.