NIRANJAN NAYAK Vs. SASANKA SEKHAR BISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as Block Development Officer, Pattamundai, in this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. assails the order dated 22.7.2002 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Pattamundai in ICC Case No. 59 of 2002 taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 294, 323, 506, IPC against him.

(2.) OPPOSITE party, being the complainant, lodged a complaint on 16.7.2002 alleging that on 10.7.2002 at 11 A.M. he went to the office of the petitioner requesting the latter to issue work order in his favour for execution of the road work of his village under EAS (FDR) scheme pursuant to the recommendation made by the Palli Sabha and the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant for issue of such work order. On his protest, it is alleged that the petitioner scolded him and coming out of the chair, pushed him and drove him out of the room.

(3.) MR .Kar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint lodged by the opposite party on the ground that sanction as required under Section 197, Cr.P.C. has not been obtained prior to taking of cognizance. The complaint made against him is absolutely false and frivolous inasmuch as the offence so alleged, if taken into consideration in its totality, would indicate that in course of due discharge of his official function the complainant questioned, why he did not issue the work order. The complainant and two others, who are his co-villagers, obstructed him from discharging his official business and shouted when he was in his work.