JAGDISH PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire Criminal proceeding initiated as against the petitioner including the order, dated 22.6.1998 whereby and whereunder cognizance for an offence under Sections 452/323/379 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken in Complaint Case No. 50/97.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to this application is that a complaint was filed by the opposite-party No. 2 alleging therein that on 23.6.1997, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 came within the factory premises of the complainant/opposite-party No. 2 to check the factory premises in search of child labour through they had prior knowledge that no such child labour was employed in the said factory. However, the complainant allowed the petitioner to mspect the factory premises. During the inspection of the factory, the petitioner had got one young boy Tarak Naiyak, aged about 20 years, who had come to the factory to deliver Tiffin-box to his father. The petitioner had got him intentionally to declare him child labour and thereafter, prepared a false report and asked the complainant/opposite-party No. 2 to put his signature on the report. It is further alleged that the petitioner No. 1 told him that the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/-as fine and the matter may be dropped, if a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is paid to him as bribe but when the complainant and his son refused to oblige the accused No. 1/petitioner No. 1, both the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 became furious and left the place of occurrence. It is further alleged that on the same day, i.e., 23.6.1997 at about 2.30 p.m. when the complainant along with his sons and other family members were taking rest in his residential premises situated within the factory premises, all the three accused persons/petitioners with constables 5/6 came and entered forcibly in the residential premises of the petitioner and started abusing the complainant. On protest, the petitioner No. 3 took riffle from one of the constables and assaulted the complainant's son, namely, Rakesh Kumar Lodha with the butt of riffle whereas one of the constables took away wrist watch. The witnesses reached to the spot and thereafter, the petitioners left the place giving threat to the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint case was filed. Inquiry under Section 202, Cr PC was conducted and thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under Sections 452/323/379 of the Indian Penal Code by order, dated 22.6.1998.

(3.) The opposite-party No. 2 also filed counter-affidavit claiming therein that the petitioners illegally trespassed in the residential premises of the complainant and had also assaulted and took away the wrist watch of his son. It is further alleged that the sanction order is required in the instant case as they had entered into the residential premises of the complainant and committed offence. It is further claimed that the said Tarak Nayak was found to be aged about 19/20 years in the medical examination but still notice was issued against opposite-party No. 2 for depositing a sum of Rs. 20,000/-by way of fine and as such, this petition is fit to be dismissed.