JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code), against the order dated 23. 1. 1992 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City, are as under : -

(2.) THE petitioner-Jagdish Prasad Sharma has been working as an Executive Officer in the Municipal Board, Hinduan City and Gopal. respondent No. l, has been working as a Sweeper in the said Board under him. THE respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City on 22-7-1990 with the allegations that he had gone to the office of the petitioner on 11-7-1990 to represent the case of Mr. Fabuli, a woman sweeper, but he was abused and insulted and was addressed as 'bhangi' by the petitioner, who had injured his feelings and had committed an offence punishable under section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (the Act ). THE Magistrate forwarded the matter to the Police Station, Hindaun where the case was registered. After investigation, the police submitted the final report to the effect that the matter was investigated and the allegation in the complaint was not substantiated. When the police report came up, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 23-1-1992 stating that the contents of the complaint disclose that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under section 7 of the Act. He was thus summoned by the learned Magistrate. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this petition.

(3.) IN view of section 307 of the Municipalities Act the appointing authority of the applicant-petitioner is the State Government and, as such, he can be removed from his office by the appointing authority which is the State Government. It is also clear from the complaint itself that the act complained against was stated to have been done by the petitioner while purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties as an Executive Officer. It appears that without noticing the provisions of sections 87 and 307 of the Municipalities Act and section 197 of the Code the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence. Since no cognizance could be taken against the petitioner without the sanction of the State Government, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and has to be set-aside.