AJIT KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner, who was at the relevant time Officer Incharge of Turkaulia Police Station, District East Champaran, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.3.1999 passed by Sri Awadhesh Mall, Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in connection with Tr. No. 1166 of 1999 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 1502 of 1998.). By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 148, 323, 504, 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that Opp. Party No. 2, who was at the relevant time an Advocate of Civil Court, Motihari, filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 1502 of 1998 alleging therein that this petitioner along with other police officials in an odd hour in the night of 1/2 November, 1998 forcibly entered into his house and also abused the complainant. It was alleged that the police officials also assaulted the brother of the informant. Further allegation is that the accused persons forcibly took away some articles from the house of the complainant. After tiling the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of Complaint petition, three witnesses were examined at the enquiry stage. After examining the materials available on the record, by order dated 19.3.1999 the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences as mentioned above.

(3.) Sri Shri Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner firstly argued that the petitioner, while discharging his official duty, had visited the house of the complainant on a suspicion that one of the accused in a Bank robbery case was hiding in the house of the complainant. It was alleged that one of the brothers of the complainant was wanted in the case and only after getting the information that he was hiding in the said house, the petitioner being a member of the raiding party had raided the house of the complainant. He submits that since he had visited the house of the complainant, while discharging his official duty on the order of the superior officer, the learned Magistrate before taking cognizance was required to examine as to whether prosecution sanction was granted or not. He submits that in absence of sanction for prosecution the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that neither in the complaint petition nor in the evidence of any witness any overt act has been alleged against this petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has specifically referred to the deposition of witnesses (typed copies of which have been enclosed along with the present petition) and submits that none of the witnesses have alleged any overt act against this petitioner and on those grounds he has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance.