ARCHANA MEHTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated under Complaint Case No. C/1-117 of 2002 including the order dated 2.8.2002 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau has taken cognizance.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of this application are that O.P. No. 2 (hereinafter to be referred as Complainant) filed a complaint case stating therein that he is a chamar by caste and is the District President of Bahujan Samaj Party. He had made a representation in respect of the illegal deeds of the petitioner and had brought to the light of the misdeeds and illegal acts of the petitioner and when inspite of such representation, there was no improvement in the petitioner and embezzlement in respect of Indira Awaas Yozna continued, he along with general public started demonstration in front of the office of the petitioner and the petitioner called three of them including the complainant in her office and on reaching there, complainant found the officer-in- charge and other police officials already present there who caught hold of them and abused them with filthy language and also assaulted them. Further, he was called by his caste and thereafter he along with others were sent to Jail. An inquiry under Section 202, Cr PC was held and learned Court below was pleased to take cognizance vide order dated 8.2.2002 in the said complaint case under Section 323, IPC and 3 and 4 of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even if the allegations are taken to be true, no case is made out against the petitioner. It was further pointed out that this complaint case has been filed with mala fide intention/oblique motive and it is only counter-blast to the first information report instituted by the petitioner being Patan PS Case No. 20 of 2002 against the complainant under various sections of the IPC. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was discharging her official duty in her office when complainant along with about one hundred persons entered into her office forcefully and started abusing her and introduced himself to be District President of Bahujan Samaj Party and further inquired about the demand letter made by them on which the petitioner informed complainant that she has already forwarded their demand to the higher officer and this infuriated the complainant and he started abusing the petitioner. It was also pointed out that the complainant wanted to destroy the official file kept on the table and on protest, the complainant caught hold of her neck and started pressing her neck on which her colleague and other employees raised hulla and local people came and saved her life. It is also pointed out that she reported the matter to the police and accordingly, Patan PS Case No. 20 of 2002 was registered and complainant was arrested and sent to jail. Another contention is that no offence under Section 323, IPC is made out against the petitioner as in the entire complaint petition, there is no allegation of any overt act or any assault by the petitioner and allegation that he was called Chamar to cause humiliation to him in the midst of the person is false and fabricated and he wants to take advantage of his being Harijan because a case has been lodged by this petitioner against complainant and other 100 persons under Sections 147/149/341/323/332/333/307/452/477, IPC and he having found himself in trouble has lodged this case to put pressure upon the complainant. Further, no sanction for prosecution of the petitioner from the competent authority has been taken as he is responsible Government official and prosecution of the officer, sanction has to be obtained because Section 197, Cr.P.C bars prosecution of such Govern-ment servant or public servant unless sanction from the competent authority has been obtained for prosecution. In this connection, reliance on behalf of the petitioner was placed upon Nand KumarSinha & Ors. v. State of Bihar& Ors., wherein it has been held that a complaint case was directly filed before the Special Court and he had taken cognizance in the case and accused of that case filed a petition for discharge which was disallowed and thereafter accused filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the High Court and in the High Court, it was held that the Special Judge has got no power to take cognizance without commitment of the accused person from the lower Court and in that view of the matter, the order refusing to discharge the petitioner was set aside and the case was remitted back to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate or Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for adopting proper procedure. Reliance was also placed upon Bimal Kumar Agarwal v. State of Bihar & Ors., wherein similar view was taken.