DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 23-7-93 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhopura, in Complaint Case No. 9C/93 whereby cognizance was taken under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and summonses have been ordered to be issued against him.

(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 2 Anand Mohan Mishra, Joint Registrar, Co­operative Society, Kosi and Purnea, Saharsa Division filed an official com­plaint against the petitioner wherein it was alleged inter alia that in a monthly meeting of Managers held on 6-7-93 in which the petitioner was present, one Chandeshwari Ram complained to the petitioner that he was not getting his salary for last five years. This enraged the petitioner and he told him in open meeting that he knew to move his legs, shoes, feet and arms and you Chamra' would be okayed within a minute. The said Chandeshwari Ram, thereafter filed a petition on 7-7-93 before O.P. No. 2 seeking permission of the higher authorities to file a case before the ap­propriate Court of law. It is further alleged that O.P. No. 2 was nursing his grudge against the petitioner as earlier the petitioner filed a case for defalcation of Bank money against 56 persons including one Niranjan Misra, Accountant who is the son-in-law of O.P. No. 2 requested the petitioner to eliminate the name of his son-in-law from the aforesaid defaulca-tion list but the petitioner did not do so. Due to the aforesaid facts. O.P. No. 2 was inimical to the petitioner and taking ad­vantage of the petition filed by Chandesh­wari Ram, he himself inquired into the matter and submitted a complaint petition before the Sub-Divisional judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, against the petitioner on 21-7-93. However, the said complaint petition was returned by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, with a direction to file the same at Mad-hepura Court and so, the complaint peti­tion was filed before Sub-Divisional Judi­cial Magistrate, Madhepura, who took cognizance in the case without examining the complaint under Section 200, Cr. PC. and issued summons against the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

(3.) NO counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 2. However, the State has been represented by the Addi­tional Public Prosecutor. The main objections taken by the petitioner against the impugned order are as follows: