GYAN SHANKER DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole Petitioner, who was at the relevant time, Circle Officer, Marhaurah, Saran, has come before this Court, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has approached this Court with a prayer to quash an order dated 29.3.2003 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Saran In Cr. Revision No. 363 of 2002. By the said order, the learned Additional Judge had rejected the revision petition preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 15.5.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra, whereby he had taken cognizance of offence under Sections 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 344(C) of 2002 and summoned the Petitioner to face the trial.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra at Saran, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 344(C) of 2002. In the complaint petition, the complainant has disclosed that in the year 1998 for the purpose of getting mutation done in favour of his wife on the basis of three sale deeds, he had filed petitions. It was alleged in the complaint petition that right from the year 1998, the complainant was given false assurance for doing the job Regularly, the complainant was attending the office of Circle Officer for the purpose of knowing the result of the mutation case. The complainant had categorically described the dates and year of his visit in the circle office. The said complaint was filed against the Petitioner and one Devendra Kumar Singh @ Bambam Singh, Head Clerk, Marhaurah Block, Saran, Chapra. The complaint was filed for the offence under Sections 166, 167, 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant had categorically stated that one occasion, the complainant was informed in the year 2001 that order in mutation case had already been passed and he was asked to take rent receipt from Karmchari. The complainant thereafter, again approached the office, but neither he could take the order of mutation case nor he was allowed to deposit the rent. In paragraph-13 of the complaint petition, it has been asserted by the complainant that in the month of July, 2001, while the complainant went to the office of Circle Officer and met Accused No. 2 i.e. Head Clerk, the Head Clerk demanded Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification. On objection being raised by the complainant, the Accused No. 2 asked him to make complaint wherever he wanted to make. Subsequently, the complainant approached the Petitioner, who was Circle Officer and explained regarding the conduct of Accused No. 2 whereupon the Petitioner told the complainant that he cannot get certified copy of the order of mutation case from his office. For that very purpose, he was directed to approach the office of Collector. Thereafter, the Petitioner used harsh language and directed his Guard to push the complainant out from the office and detain him. Thereafter, the Guard forcibly detained the complainant. After noticing the said occurrence, number of persons assembled there and keeping in view the fact that the complainant was a retired Bank Officer, other persons also raised objection. It has further been disclosed that the complainant was detained illegally for an hour and thereafter, the Accused No. 2 i.e. Head Clerk gave copies of the order passed in three mutation cases. After getting the said copies, the complainant noticed that the orders were not correct. However, the complainant filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and after conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate, by its order dated 15.5.2002, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the Petitioner filed a revision petition vide Cr. Revision No. 363 of 2002. The learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, by assigning a detailed reason, has rejected the revision petition preferred by the Petitioner. Before the revisional court, the plea was taken on behalf of the Petitioner that in absence of sanction for prosecution, the learned Magistrate was not authorized to take cognizance of the offence. The revision petition was rejected on 29.3.2003.