SURENDRA NATH DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire roceedings initiated against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 425/95 on 3-9-1996 under Sections 323 and 341, IPC including order taking cognizance dated 26-2-1998.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of this application are that the opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant") filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 425/96 alleging therein that on 2nd August, 1996 at about 3 pm. while complainant was returning from Bijupara to his home then a jeep stopped in the way and all the accused persons including the petitioner got down from the jeep and surrounded the complainant and Kumar Parasnath uttered to give him kicks and demands accounts and thereafter Suresh Prasad gave him fists and slap and other accused persons caught his hair and forcibly threw him in the Jeep and caused injury to the complainant on elbow and his head. When he enquired into the fact then in abusing language Parasnath threatened him to teach a lesson. He was taken to Mander Chowk but complainant requested to let him to inform his family members. He was pro-duced before Surendra Nath Das and Parasnath asked him to put some signatures on blank papers. Thereafter Surendra Nath caught his hair and pushed him and out of fear the complainant put his signatures on three blank papers. The complainant protested that other persons, who have taken loan from him, their loan amount to the tune of Rs. 10.000/- has been waived then why his loan amount should not be waived. Thereafter, Suresh Prasad told him that he waived the loan amount of those persons, who paid the money to them. He was taken to Ranchi jail, where he remained from 2-8-1996 to 5-8-1996. Thereafter son of the informant, in one instalment, deposited sum of Rs. 15.000/- and in token of payment of Rs. 15.000/- a backdated receipt was granted to the son of the complainant and thereafter complainant was released from jail. Cause of occurrence is said to be the fact that accused persons-petitioners were demanding money for giving the loan amount and complainant was not ready for the same and complainant always demanded the account of the loan amount in writing and accused persons including the petition-ers were not ready to provide the accounts of the loan amount and due to this very matter, there was some scuffle between the complainant and accused persons including the petitioners and thereafter accused persons hatched up a conspiracy and complainant was arrested.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that before taking cognizance in the case, five witnesses were examined under Section 202, Cr.P.C. {An-nexure-3) and not a single witness has sup ported the case against the petitioner. It was further pointed out that the learned Magistrate, without applying his judicial mind, has taken cognizance against the petitioner, without obtaining sanction order under Section 197, Cr.P.C. and without considering the police report and depositions recorded under Section 202, Cr.P.C. It was further pointed out that petitioner was delegated with the powers of certificate officer by the Commissioner of South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (Annexure-5). It was further pointed out that on the requisition of Branch Manager of the concerned Branch, a certificate case being Certificate Case No. 126/93-94 was filed against the complainant before the petitioner, who issued a notice under Section 7 of the Act against the complainant to file show cause but complainant neither appeared nor filed any show cause. Thereafter the petitioner Issued a warrant of attachment for realization of certificate amount upon the complainant under Section 30 of the Act on 9-6-1993 still the complainant did not deposit the amount and finding no way out the petitioner issued a notice to the complainant on 5-1-1995 to show cause why warrant should not be issued against him and in pursuance of that, the complainant was arrested. The complainant was arrested on 2-8-1996 and, therefore, there is no laches on the part of the certificate officer. It was further pointed out that without obtaining sanction order no prosecution can be launched against the petitioner and in this connection reliance was placed on 1999 (2) East Cr Cases 178 : (AIR 1999 SC 1437: 1999 CriLJ 2105) (SC), wherein it has been held that when there is connection between the act complained and the discharge of the official duty by the Government servant then initiation of prosecution in absence of sanction for prosecution is not maintainable.