OM PRAKASH SULTANIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsels for both the sides.

(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding in complaint case being C.P. Case No. 283 of 2000, as well as, the order dated 20.6.2000 passed therein, by Sri A. K. Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby upon enquiry in the complaint case, the Court below has found the prima facie case against the petitioner under Sections 166 and 323 of the I.P.C. and has ordered for issuance of process against the petitioner.

(3.) IN the complaint petition, it is also alleged that on 23.2.2000 the complainant was asked by the petitioner to meet him in a hotel, but the complainant did not meet him. The petitioner inspected the business premises of the complainant and made some queries and he was also asked to produce the books of accounts on 24.2.2000. On 24.2.2000 again, the complainant was asked to produce the books on 3.3.2000 and in this way, the accused denied the issuance of Form IX -C as the complainant did not oblige the accused petitioner. It is further alleged in the complaint petition that on 15.3.2000, the complainant again met the petitioner for issuance of the said form, on which date, there was some altercation between the parties and the complainant was also assaulted by the petitioner and was threatened to be sent to jail, or to be implicated in a false case. With these allegations, the complaint petition was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, which was registered as C.P. Case No. 283 of 2000. It appears that the complainant was examined on S.A and he supported the case and he also adduced three witnesses at the stage of enquiry, on the basis of which, the prima facie case was found against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 166 and 323 of the I.P.C. by order dated 20.6.2000 and the process was ordered to be issued against the accused petitioner. It appears from the perusal of the order dated 20.6.2000 passed by the Court below that the Court took into consideration the fact that the petitioner was a public servant as defined under Section 21 of the I.P.C., and whether the protection of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C was available to the petitioner or not, and the Court below found that since the allegation against the petitioner cannot be said to be in pursuance of his acting under the color of official duty, the protection under Section 197 was not available to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has challenged the entire proceeding as well as the order dated 20.6.2000 in the present application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.