SARAT CHANDRA PATRA Vs. ANANTA KUMAR BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the order dated 23.8.1997 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Soro in I.C.C. No. 52 of 1997 taking cognizance of offences committed under Sections 323/379 of the penal code.

(2.) THE case of the complainant -opposite party is that on 19.4.1997 at about 4 O'clock he was called to Simulia Police Station where the accused -petitioner was working as the Officer -in -charge. When the complainant went to the police station he was asked to sit on the verandah and subsequently it is alleged that the accused -petitioner asked him to depose before him and before the court that the FIR lodged by the wife of the complainant, co -villager Ajay a Sial with regard to house burning is not correct and wife of Ajaya Sial had herself set fire to the house. Since the complainant did not agree to depose in the manner the accused -petitioner wanted, he was abused in foul language and was assaulted by means of kicks, fist blows as well as by use of stick. In view of such assault, the complainant sustained injuries. At that point of time though the witnesses named in the complaint were present, they did not oppose being afraid of the accused -petitioner. It is further alleged that the wearing apparels of the complainant were taken away along with Rs. 100/ - kept in the shirt packet and he was detained in the Police Station. On the next day it is alleged that the accused -petitioner again persuaded him to make false statement before him and before the court and also threatened that unless the complainant did not do so, false case would be initiated against him. It is also alleged in the complaint that since 19.4.97 the complainant had been detained in the Police Station and ultimately on 23rd April, 1997 he was shown to have been arrested in connection with Simulia P.S. Case No. 27 of 1997 (G.R 85/97) and was forwarded to the Court. The complainant complained before the learned Magistrate about the ill -treatment received by him during his stay in the Police Station and accordingly under orders of the learned Magistrate, he was examined by the doctor and was sent to jail custody. After coming back from the jail custody and after recovery from the injury, the complaint was filed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner challenged the order solely on the ground of absence of sanction. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the entire alleged overt act even if accepted to be correct which took place inside the police station is in discharge of official duty. There is no dispute that the complainant was arrested in connection with G.R. Case No. 85 of 1997 and, therefore, any kind of overt act alleged by the complainant can come under the purview of official duty and, therefore, sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary. None -appeared for the opposite party in spite of notice.