NIRUPAMA DEY Vs. CHITANYA DALUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Misc. Case has been filed invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the petitioner whose complaint petition, filed against two public servants, has been dismissed under Section 203, Cr.P.C. in absence of sanction as required under Section 197, Cr.P.C.2. For appreciating the contentions, the necessary facts in gist may be stated as follows : The petitioner filed a complaint case in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak against the opposite parties who are police officers alleging therein that on October 12, 1998 at about 9 P.M. the accused persons came on a motor cycle to her house during the absence Of her father, knocked at the door, forcibly entered into the house giving her a push and searched for her uncle Makhanlal Das. It is alleged that when they failed to trace out said Makhanlal, opposite party No. 1 accused the petitioner in filthy language, caught hold of her left hand and tore the front-portion of her wearing dress. It is also alleged that opposite party No. 2 forcibly closed her mouth when she started to shout. However, hearing hue and cry, her mother along with her sisters reached the spot and on their protest, the accused persons damaged two earthen water-posts, kicked at the rice pot and left the spot threatening the petitioner to kill her if she would dispose the incident before anybody. The said complaint petition was registered as I.C.C. No. 429 of 1998. The learned S.D.J.M. after recording initial statement of the complainant inquired about the matter under S. 202, Cr. P.C., recorded the statements of two witnesses and thereafter issued process against the opposite parties after taking cognizance of the offence under Ss. 427, 354, 294 and 448, I.P.C. The opposite parties appeared and filed a petition to

(2.) reconsider the order directing issue of process and to recall the said order mainly on the ground that both the accused being public servants and the incident having occurred during the due discharge of their official duty in connection with Bhandaripokhari P. S. Case No. 363 of 1998 while they had gone to the house of the complainant in search of accused Makhanlal Das who happens to be the material uncle of the complainant. The order taking cognizance of the alleged offences in absence of sanction as mandatorily required under Section 197, Cr. P.C., is not just and proper.

(3.) The learned S.D.J.M. by his order dated 22-4-1999 recalled the order taking cognizance and dismissed the complaint petition under Section 203, Cr. P.C. on the ground that no sanction under Section 197, Cr. P.C. had been obtained by the complainant. The said order of the S.D.J.M. was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Crl. Revision No. 38 of 1999. The revisional Court also confirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the revision by its order dated 6-9-1999. The present petition has been filed Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court challenging the aforesaid two orders.