NABAGHANA PATALASINGH Vs. BHANUMATI PADHIARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges the order dated 06.12.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur in I.C.C. No. 79 of 2001 taking cognizance of the offences under Section 294 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent orders directing issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner for his non-appearance in the Court.

(2.) A complaint case was filed on the allegation that the complainant had gone to the Soso Police Station to lodge an F.I.R. against some persons who had created disturbances relating to the boundary wall. It is alleged that when she requested the accused Govinda Chandra Mallik, Officer-in-charge of the Police Station to accept the F.I.R., she was abused in filthy language and the petitioner, who was working as A.S.I. at that point of time also used such language. After filing of the complaint case, the learned Magistrate took up inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance of offence under Section 294 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code by order dated 6.12.2001. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for dispensing with his personal appearance and the same was rejected on 10.1.2002. The aforesaid order was not challenged. Subsequently, the petitioner having failed to appear in person, N.B.W.A. was issued on 27.3.2002. In spite of issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest, the petitioner did not appear and only when the learned Magistrate took steps by issuing process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order taking cognizance.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the order taking cognizance solely on the ground that he is protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C., and cognizance cannot be taken without prior sanction of the Government. In this connection, the learned Counsel relied on certain decisions. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, there was a case pending against the complainant and while investigating the same, the present occurrence is alleged to have taken place and, therefore, Section 197 Cr.P.C. has full application. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are the cases of Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari reported in, Kremjit Mohananda v. Mohanpani Karua and Anr. reported in 1995 (II) OLR 284, State of Bihar v. Kamla Prasad Singh and Ors. reported in, N.K, Ogle v. Sanwaldas alias Sanwalmal Ahuja reported in (1999) 16 OCR (S.C.) 530, Abdul Wahab Ansari v. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in, Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh and Ors. v. Jammal Patel and Ors. reported in, Sri Satyabadi Padhi v. Nepal Chandra Kar reported in 2001 (I) OLR 238 and Nirupama Dey v. Chaitanya Dalua and Anr. reported in 2003 (II) OLR 569.