Raj Vanshi Singh vs State of Jharkhand and Another

D.K. Sinha, J.—This Cr. Revision is directed against the order dated 30.9.2000 passed by Shri Santosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Giridih is T.R. No. 347 of 2004 arising out of complaint case No. 923/1993 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner Raj Vanshi Singh for his discharge u/s 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.

The brief fact of the case was that the O.P. No. 2 complainant had filed a complaint Case No. 923 of 1993 on 2.12.1993 against the petitioner and others for the alleged offence under Sections 323/325/342/30 and 379, IPC. After enquiry u/s 202, CrPC learned C.J.M took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 323, 325, 342 and 379, IPC.,

The prosecution story in short was that one Raj Kumar Roy had sold a cow for Rs. 565/- to one Khalil Mian and the cow was kept in the house of Rahmat Mian in the village Lal Bazar. When it was learnt by the "Sarpanch" Muslim Mian and others that the cow was kept for slaughter they tried to conceal the fact. The police was informed to prevent any cast riot but it was alleged that the petitioner who was the then officer-in-charge of Dhanwar Police Station let off all the accused Raj Kumar Roy and others after accepting Rs. 5,000/-. When the villagers raised protest against the highhandedness of Dhanwar Police including the petitioner by agitating the matter, it was alleged that the petitioner and other police personnel called the informant and other agitators in the police station and brutally assaulted them with sticks, all the more, a case under various sections of IPC was instituted against the complainant O.P. No. 2 and others. Accordingly, they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 128 of 1993. On his petition there being filed, the O.P. No. 2 was produced in the Court and his statement was recorded on solemn affirmation by registering a complaint against the petitioner and others and an enquiry was conducted u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having been satisfied prima facie with the materials collected in course of enquiry, cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 323/325/342 and 379, IPC and accordingly summons were issued against the petitioner and others.

It would not be out of place to mention that against the cognizance order taken by the C.J.M. Giridih the petitioner had preferred a quashing petition u/s 482, CrPC in which, apart from other defence, the petitioner said that his criminal prosecution was not maintainable for want of sanction u/s 197, CrPC as he was a public servant who had taken action in discharge of his official duty. The then Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court by a well discussed order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2557 of 1996 (R) on 31.7.1997 disposed of the petition u/s 482, CrPC with the observation, "I am not inclined to interfere with the cognizance as taken by the learned Court below. The matter of sanction u/s 197 of the Code would remain open for consideration by the learned Court below, the point of grievance, as raised by the petitioner, have got good nexus to discharge from the offence as alleged then he would very well within his jurisdiction to file a petition to that effect after appearance before the lower Court at appropriate stage which would definitely be considered by the Trial Magistrate. With this observation, this petition is disposed of."

I have gone through the impugned order passed by Shri Santosh Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih dated 30.9.2004 who has discussed the materials collected in course of enquiry and having been satisfied he observed that materials were sufficient for framing of charge against the petitioner and other accused persons under Sections, 323, 325, 341, 342 and 379, IPC. As regards sanction u/s 197, CrPC it was observed that the act done by the petitioner by assaulting the Complainant O.P. No. 2 and other witnesses did not pertain to nexus, with his official duty and therefore, no sanction was required for the prosecution of the petitioner who was the then Officer-in-charge of Dhanwar Police Station.

Without prejudice to the merit of the case, I find that the order impugned passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate does not call for interference I am in agreement with the learned Magistrate that in the given circumstances no sanction is required u/s 197, CrPC for criminal prosecution of the petitioner.

Accordingly, this Cr. Revision is dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Trial Magistrate as soon as possible so as to stand charge.