TAPAS KUMAR RATH Vs. HAREKRISHNA PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner assails in this revision the legality of the order dated 9-5-1996 passed by the learned S. D. J. M. , udala in I. C. C. No. 39 of 1996 refusing to take cognizance in respect of offences alleged to have been committed by the opposite party who is the sole accused on the ground of want of sanction as envisaged under section 197 Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE petitioner, as the complainant, instituted the complaint case on the allegation of commission of offences under sections 323, 294 and 384 I. P. C. by the opposite party-accused, the then O. I. C. of khunta Police Station in the district of mayurbhanj. It was alleged that as the petitioner-complainant was a witness in a vigilance enquiry against the accused, many false cases were manufactured against him by the accused in order to harass him. On 19-4-1996 at about 9. 00 p. m. when the complainant was returning from Baripada after complaining against the accused before the superintendent of Police and attending to some personal work, on the way, the accused stopped the bus in which the complainant was travelling, arrested him and forcibly took him to Khunta Police Station. When Pradip kumar Upadhyaya and Ajit Kumar choudhary, neighbours of the complainant, came to the police station and asked the accused to release the complainant, the accused used filthy language and threatened that he would not spare the complainant. Thereafter, the accused pressed complainant's neck and assaulted the lower part of his abdomen with a police lathi. Accused also forcibly took away all the papers from the complainant. However, he returned all the papers except copy of the F. I. R. which the complainant had submitted before the Circle Inspector of Police on 11 -4-1996. It was also averred in the complaint petition that when the complainant was produced in Court on 20-4-1996, he complained to the S. D. J. M. , Udala regarding such treatment by the accused, upon which he was medically examined and thereafter released on bail. On presentation of the complaint petition, learned S. D. J. M. recorded initial statement on 24-4-1996 and thereafter held an enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. in course of which two witnesses, i. e. Witness No. 1 Pradip Kumar Upadhyaya and witness No. 2 Lingaraj Tripathy, were examined. Thereafter the impugned order was passed and the complaint petition was dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that initial statement of the complainant and the evidence of the two witnesses examined in course of enquiry clearly make out commission of the alleged offences. The acts complained of against the accused were not in any manner connected with the official duties of the accused nor were the same so integrally connected with the official duties attached to the accused to conclude that the accused abused, assaulted and committed extortion in discharge of his duties. Therefore, there was no basis for the learned Magistrate to insist upon sanction for prosecution against the accused.