SUMATI NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by invoking inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has questioned the correctness, legality and judicial property of the impugned order dtd. 2/12/2013 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Narsinghpur in connection with ICC Case No.10 of 2013 for having not taken cognizance of the alleged offences instead demanding sanction in terms of Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. on the grounds inter alia that the same is not tenable in law and thus, liable to be set aside.

(2.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below fell into serious error while calling for sanction with the conclusion that it is necessary in order to criminally prosecute opposite party No.2 despite the fact that the allegations are to the effect that she was misbehaved and manhandled by him during and in course of the alleged incident. It is further contended that such treatment meted out to the petitioner at the instance of opposite party No.2 was no part of official duty and therefore, sanction is not required but then, the learned court below grossly erred while asking for it. While contending so, Mr. Mishra relied upon the following decisions, such as, Keshaba Jena Vrs. Pradipta Kishore Das and others: (1989) 2 OCR 34; Sri Nabaghana Patalasingh Vrs. Smt. Bhanumati Padhiari: 2006 (I) OLR 330; Choudhury Parveen Sultana Vrs. State of West Bengal and Another: (2009) 42 OCR (SC) 535; and Rabindranath Satpathy Vrs. Hina Sethy: (2009) 44 OCR 728.