RAVISH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') with a prayer to quash the order dtd. 19/12/2011 passed by learned C.J.M., Bhagalpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 525 of 2009, whereby cognizance of the offences under Sec. 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') has been taken against the petitioner and others.

(2.) Mr. Subhash Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the O.P. No. 2 filed his complaint with malafide intention to harass the petitioner and others on account of a legal action taken by the petitioner in connection with Barari P.S. Case No. 103 of 2009 registered under Sec. 447, 384, 385, 427 and 379 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC against the complainant's sons, namely, Indu Yadav, Bharat Lal Yadav, Narad Yadav and Guddu Yadav. On the alleged day of occurrence, the petitioner being officer-in-charge of Barari police station proceeded with other police officials to conduct raid at the house of the accused persons of Barari P.S. Case No. 103 of 2009 and before proceeding, an entry in the general diary was also made of which copy has been filed before this Court with supplementary affidavit and during the course of raid, one wanted accused, namely, Munna Sah was arrested but the raid at the complainant's house could not be conducted as the complainant's house's main gate was found locked at that time. The complainant filed his complaint only with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioner and also as a counterblast to the official action taken by the petitioner against the sons of the complainant and there are sufficient materials to show that at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was discharging his official duty and during the course of inquiry, an enquiry witness namely Narad Yadav stated before the trial court that the petitioner along with all other police personnel were in uniform which also clearly manifests that the petitioner and other police personnel visited the house of the complainant to perform their official duty as the sons of the complainant were warranted in Barari P.S. Case No. 103 of 2009, so, the petitioner's act is protected under the provisions of Sec. 197(2) of the Cr.P.C. but the learned trial court took cognizance of the alleged offences without taking previous mandatory sanction from the competent authority of the Government of Bihar and also ignored an important notification issued by the Governor of Bihar by which the protection under Sec. 197(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been extended to the officers of the Bihar Police Force whenever they discharge their official function if an offence is alleged to have been committed by any of them while discharging his official duty. It was lastly submitted that the manner of occurrence particularly with regard to the number of injuries to the complainant's son Bharat Lal Yadav described in the complaint does not get corroboration from his injury report filed before the enquiry court by the complainant and there is vital contradiction in between them and the enquiry witnesses are not the independent persons and from perusal of their statements, the alleged offences do not even prima facie attract against the petitioner and the instant matter is an example of gross misuse of the process of law.

(3.) In support of above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Ram Rekha Pandey vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2016 (3) pljr 296. The relevant paragraph No. 14, upon which reliance has been placed, is being reproduced as under for ready reference: