RAMJEE THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) the petitioner, who is a retired Deputy Collector, Birpur, District -Saharsa, seeks quashing of order dated 4.5.1990 passed by Judicial Magistrate, first class, Birpur at Supaul in Case No. 3080 of 1988 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 218 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT appears that the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint (copy at Annexure -1) against the present petitioner alleging that Revenue Case No. 1 of 1986 -87 relating to annulment of Jamabandi No. 460 in the name of the father of the complainant -opposite party No. 2, on one hand, and Sri Shanker Prasad Mahaseth, on the other hand, was pending before the petitioner in the capacity of Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Birpur at Supaul. The father of the complainant was opposite party in the said case. It is alleged that the petitioner of the said case, Rama Kant Jha, was a Homoeopathic Doctor and the petitioner was under his treatment and Rama Kant Jha was on visiting terms with the petitioner. The father of the complainant moved a transfer application on 12.4.1988 before the Collector, Saharsa, for the transfer of the said Revenue Case No. 1 of 1986. -87 from the court of the petitioner. The Collector, Saharsa, by his order dated 12.4.1988, stayed further proceedings pending in the court of the petitioner and called for the record of the case. It is alleged that the said stay order was communicated to the petitioner by Special Messenger on 13.4.1988 and the petitioner noted the order of stay in his court diary against serial No. 7 relating to the case in question. It is alleged that the record of the case was not sent to the Collector till 12.6.1988 and when father of the complainant went on 20.6.1988 for making Pairvi in another case he heard rumour that final orders have been passed in Revenue Case No. 1 of 1986 -87 inspire of the stay order passed by the Collector, Saharsa. Thereupon the father of the complainant obtained the certified copy of the court diary and also the certified copy of the order passed by petitioner on 14.4.1988 which was against the father of the complainant -opposite party No. 2. It is alleged that the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Sections 218 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code by playing fraud in order to illegally help Rama Kant Jha, the petitioner of the Revenue Case.

(3.) IT is alleged that the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Birpur, after examining the complainant, transferred the case under Section 192 of the Code to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, first class, Birpur at Supaul, without taking cognizance of the offence and the Judicial Magistrate, first class, Birpur, (Saharsa), has taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the cognizance order to be illegal. It is also alleged that the cognizance could not have been taken without previous sanction from the appropriate authority for the prosecution of the petitioner as the petitioner was a Public Servant at the time of commission of the offence. It is further stated that no offence under Sections 218 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the petitioner.