PADMA MOTHU Vs. AMITA MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of the petitioner for quashing of the order dtd. 1/11/2021 passed in 1CC Case No.02 of 2021 by the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur and for having been summoned in connection therewith on the grounds inter alia that the same is not maintainable due to want of sanction under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. as all of them were on duty at the relevant point of time.

(2.) The opposite party lodged the complaint (Annexure-2) in ICC Case No.02 of 2021 against the petitioners for an incident dtd. 4/3/2021. As per the complaint, the petitioners committed the alleged mischief described in Annexure-2 and during which and in course of events, they abused and assaulted the opposite party. On receipt of Annexure-2, the learned court below recorded the initial statement of the opposite party under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, proceeded to hold enquiry under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. and examined a single witness during such enquiry and finally passed the impugned order dtd. 1/11/2021 under Annexure-4 by taking cognizance of the offences under Ss. 294, 452, 453, 323, 354 and 506 read with 34 IPC and summoned all of them to appear on the date fixed. The said decision of the learned court below has been challenged by the petitioners, who are the police officials of Puttasingh P.S. in the district of Rayagada. According to the petitioners, they were on duty on the alleged date and had been to the village in question on receiving intelligence report about disposal of contraband Ganja stored in the house of one of the villagers. During that time, according to the petitioners, the person in possession of the contraband Ganja and his supporters armed with traditional weapon started abusing them in filthy language and threatened all with dire consequences, in connection with which, Puttasingh P.S. Case No.27 dtd. 5/3/2021 was registered under Ss. 147, 148, 120-B, 341, 342, 332, 353, 354, 325, 307, 395, 435, 294 and 506 IPC besides Sec. 20(b)(C) NDPS Act read with Sec. 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. It is, hence, claimed that the learned court below without considering the need for a sanction under law in terms of Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioners and therefore, the impugned order under Annexure-4 is bad in law.

(3.) Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Chand, learned counsel for the opposite party.