KAILASH RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.734 of 1998/T.R. No.616 of 1998 pending before Shri A.K.Bashishta, Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. It has also been prayed for quashing of the order dated 9.10.1998 whereby the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence under sections 323, 341, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the criminal proceeding pursuant to the complaint case no.734 of 1998/616 of 1998, has submitted that the complaint petition was filed by the complainant maliciously. He further submits that bare perusal of the complaint petition makes it clear that false allegation was levelled against the petitioner and others. He submits that the petitioner at the relevant time was the District Co-operative Officer, Sasaram, and the complainant was Secretary of Sasaram Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti. He submits that since the petitioner in the capacity of District Co-operative Officer had taken action against the complainant/Sasaram Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti, the complainant with a view to create defence maliciously filed a complaint petition. He further submits that the order of cognizance is vitiated in view of the fact that prior sanction for prosecution of the petitioner from the competent authority was not obtained. Accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance as well as entire proceeding, so far as the petitioner is concerned, in the complaint case in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring Annexure 4 to the petition, which is a letter sent by the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Rohtas, submits that in respect of filing of the present complaint petition the petitioner had given explanation to the District Magistrate and he has categorically stated in the said letter vide its memo no. 458 dated 5.10.1998 that the complainant being Secretary of the Samiti had never produced the record before the District Cooperative Officer or its officials and due to that reason proceeding under Section 45 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act has been initiated against this petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that contents of the complaint petition itself categorically specify that the offence was 3 committed by the petitioner. The complainant was assaulted by this petitioner. He submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the allegation leveled in the complaint petition. He further submits that so far as question of sanction is concerned the same can be considered during the trial. This is not the stage to raise all the points.