SURENDRA MOHAN SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application at the instance of the sole petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against order dated 3.8.93 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Gopalganj, in Complaint Case No. 483/93 (Tr. No. 961/93), whereby cognizance of the alleged offences have been taken under sections 323, 491 and 504 IPC, and the petitioner has been summoned to stand his trial. According to the petition of complaint filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, OP. No.2 (the complainant) alleged that he was on the date of occurrence functioning as assistant teacher in primary school Bathwa Anchal, Gopalganj, under orders of the District Superintendent of Education, he was deputed to act as invigilator of the examinations held on 30.4.93 at Sahyog High School, Bathwa Bazar. According to the further allegations, the examinees had thrown away guess papers, books, chits etc. on the floor of room no. 5 where the examinations were going on. He was picking up the same and throwing out of room. At this moment the petitioner herein (the accused person), sighted O.P. No. 2 doing all that and stormed into the room and caught him (the latter) by his collar, and took him forcibly outside the room. O.P. No.2 protested upon which the petitioner (the accused) started delivering him with fists and slaps and also threatened to kill him. He immediately got himself relieved from that duty and reported to his own school. On the same day, he reported this matter to the District Superintendent of Education in writing who gave the assurance to take appropriate action, but no action was in fact taken. Hence the petition of complaint which explains the delay. The complaint petition was filed on 24.5.93, a copy of which is Annexure -1 to this quashing petition. On these allegations, Complaint Case No. 483/93 was registered in the court of learned CJM, Gopalganj, who passed the impugned order dated 18.8.93. Hence the present quashing petition.

(2.) WHILE assailing the validity of the impugned order of cognizance, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was on 29.4.93 the Sub Divisional Officer of Bathwa Sub Division, and was the official incharge for proper conduct of exams in that area. According to him, this position is manifest from the petition of complaint itself as well as from letter contained in memo no. 1573, dated 22.4.93, from 1he District Education Officer to the SDO, Gopalganj, as well as Bathwa requesting him to take care of the law and order situation so that the exams are conducted peacefully. The petitioner was really acting in due discharge of his duties in supervising fair and proper exams and he had in the process exceeded the limits. In such circumstances, in his submission, he is entitled to the protection afforded by section 197 of the Cr. P.C. In other words, the impugned order of cognizance is bad in law on account of lack of previous sanction for prosecution contemplated by section 197 of the Code.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the counsel carefully and perused the records, particularly in the absence of the learned counsel for OP. No.2. I am of the view that the petitioner, in the