RAJ KISHORE SWAIN Vs. RANJANA MOHARANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard further argument. Hearing is concluded and judgment is as follows :-

(2.) This application u/S. 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the order of cognizance passed on 2-1-2001 in I.C.C. No. 44 of 2000 by learned S. D. J. M. Bhubaneswar. It reveals from the complaint that allegation has been made against the petitioners complaining of the offence of looting the properties from the house which includes sized woods, wooden furniture, cash and the machinaries for carpentary and sawing and in that process exhibiting indecent conduct to the complainant who is the wife of the owner of that premises. After receipt of the complaint, learned Magistrate directed for investigation under S. 202, Cr. P. C. by the local Police and after receipt of the report which went against the petitioner, he conducted an inquiry by himself, examined the complainant's witnesses and on 2-1-2001 passed the impugned order taking cogniznce of the offence under Ss. 451, 380, 506/34, I.P.C. Accordingly, learned S. D. J. M. issued process against the petitioners under S. 204, Cr. P. C. Resisting to that action of learned S. D. J. M., Bhudaneswar, petitioners claim protection under S. 197, Cr. P. C. on the ground that they were the two Forest Range officers and their lawful act of conducting raid, search and seizure of illegal timbers, sawn woods and implements for sawing and carpentery has resulted in institution of the aforesaid false complaint with a view to malign and harass them.

(3.) Certain facts which are not in dispute at the Bar is that on 15-1-2000 i.e., the date of occurrence these two officials along with police force and the Magistrate had conducted a raid and seized woods and sawing materials, implements etc. and at that stage they suffered stiff opposition and violent conduct from the people of that locality and because of that the FIR lodged by petitioner No. 2 was registered as G. R. Case No. 147 of 2000 and a charge-sheet under Sections 148, 149, 387, 427, 336/294, I.P.C. has been filed against some of the co-villagers of the complainant who is the opposite party in this case. It is also not in dispute that both the petitioners, being the Range Officers, appointed and working under the State Government and they are removable from service with the sanction of the State Government.