BHARAT RANJAN MISRA Vs. SHYAM SUNDER AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was an Additional Commercial Tax Officer has filed this application seeking quashing of cognizance taken and direction issued for issue of process against him for commission of offences under Sections 294 and 506, IPC alleged in a complaint filed by the opposite party. The complaint was filed on 30-9-1989 with the averments that the complainant is a businessman of repute and goodwill having business at Kasinga. On 19-9-1989 the accused persons including the petitioner came to his business premises and verified the books of accounts but did not find there any defect or mistake. After the verification the accused persons who besides the petitioner, were the Inspector of Commercial Tax and the Inspector of Investigation Wing, demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/. Since the opposite party did not oblige them and protested demand, they got annoyed and scolded him in obscene language. The opposite party protested such highhanded action and uncivilised behaviour and asked them to leave the mill premises. They left the mill premises giving him threat of getting him imprisoned. On such complaint, the learned Magistrate, after recording the initial statement, directed an inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. The opposite party examined three witnesses in the inquiry. Thereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 294 and 506, IPC against the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner in moving the petition has averred that on 19-9-1989 he and his staff had reached the mill premises of the opposite party at 12 noon to inspect the books of accounts but were refused access to the books and instead the opposite party asked the party to leave the premises. The petitioner and the party left the premises saying that the matter would be reported to the Assistant Commissioner (Vigilance Wing), Sambalpur. Thereafter at about 7.30 p.m. while the petitioner and his staff were returning after checking in some other establishments, the opposite party along with 20 to 30 other persons stopped his jeep and assaulted him and his staff and also snatched away the bag containing official papers. The matter was reported by the petitioner at the Kesinga Police Station. The Officer-in-charge, Kesinga P.S. after investigation, arrested the opposite party on 26-9-1989 and produced him before the Magistrate who released him on bail. It is his case that thereafter the complaint was filed as a counterblast only to intimidate the petitioner and to avoid the prosecution launched against him.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges the complaint to be mala fide and filed as an afterthought and that too, after delay of 11 days of the occurrence, and on such ground, seeks quashing of the cognizance and of the direction to issue process against him. He also raises the question of sanction having not been obtained for his prosecution, he being a Government employee.