PODDAR SURAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

(2.) THE applicant, against whom cognizance has been taken under order 12.2.2001, has come to this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings on two grounds. Firstly, that the allegations made against the present applicant prima facie do not make out a criminal offence and secondly, that unless sanction for prosecution is obtained in view of bar contained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court below could not take cognizance against the applicant. Advancing the cause of the applicant further it was submitted that the place of incident is the office of the present applicant and the incident took place in the office itself. It must be presumed that accused must have done some act while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official dutles. From the allegations made in the complaint it would clearly appear that the applicant an aspirant of a new connection deposited certain amounts and when was asking for a fresh connection according to allegations the demand was made for illegal gratification. On opposition of the complainant he was manhandled by the present applicant and some other and the complainant was beaten, his wrist watch and gold chain were snatched.

(3.) IN the present case, I do not find any reason to hold that in absence of the sanction, the court below could not take cognizance of the matter. At this stage, learned Counsel for the applicant refers to Section 210 Code of Criminal Procedure. Referring to Section 210 Code of Criminal Procedure it is contended that as the police investigation is also pending in relation to offence which was the subject of the enquiry or trial before the Magistrate the Magistrate could not proceed with the matter and was obliged to stay the proceedings and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. I am shocked to hear such an argument in the High Court. The argument is revolting. It shocks the judicial conscious of the Court. Section 210 talks of a situation where on the report of the complainant himself the police is making investigation in the matter and the complainant has come to the Court. If during course of enquiry or trial the Magistrate learn that on the report of the complainant the police investigation is going on then he is obliged to stay the proceedings and call for the police report. Sub -section (3) of Section 210 would make it further clear that in case the police does not file its final report under Section 173 against the persons made accused then the Magistrate shall require the complainant of the complaint case to proceed further in the matter and would vacate the stay. The provisions contained under Section 210 Code of Criminal Procedure in fact are to avoid unnecessary launching of the complaint in the Court. If in a case allegation is made against some persons and the police files challan against them then the Court is not required to proceed further with the complaint and the Court in such a case would tag the complaint with the police case. It is only in a case where the police does not file its, challan against some of the accused and the Court is of tne opinion that further enquiry is to be made into the complaint, the Court would require the complainant to proceed further in the matter. By no stretch of imagination it can be held that a counter case would be the subject matter of the enquiry or trial held by the Magistrate in complaint cases. The counter case would be on its own footing and the allegation and, a counter case can never be the subject matter of the complaint as that would be projected by the accused as a defence. The argument in relation to Section 210, being misconceived is rejected. I find no reason to interfere.