- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the State. The order dated 18/09/2007, passed in P.C.R. Case No. 56/2007, under which cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the Court without having sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance of the offence.
(2.) MR . Delip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner, the Principal Incharge of an Ayurvedic College, was sitting in his office O.P. No. 2 came to his office and asked as to why not he is paying his dues. By saying so, he assaulted on the head of the petitioner by the butt of a pistol as a result of which he sustained injury. For the said incident a case was lodged, which was registered as Sahebganj (Nagar) P.S. Case No. 17/2007 under Sections 448, 341, 323, 379, 353, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. But, subsequently, a complaint case was lodged by the complainantO.P. No. 2 against this petitioner stating therein that when he came to the office of the petitioner for realizing his dues he was assaulted and his mobile phone as well as an amount of Rs. 700/ was snatched, upon which, P.C.R. Case No. 56/2007 was instituted. But the said case, in the facts and circumstances, can be said to have maliciously been lodged by O.P. No. 2 and, therefore, on this ground alone the case lodged against the petitioner is fit to be quashed. It was also submitted that accepting the entire allegations to be true, it would appear that whatever overt act was committed that can be said to have committed in discharge of the public duty and, thereby, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted in absence of the sanction by the competent authority and on the ground also the instant case is fit to be quashed. However, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submits that it is not a simple case where the petitioner has been alleged to have caused hurt to O.P. No. 2, rather it is the case where it has been alleged that when O.P. No. 2 entered into the office of the petitioner for demanding his dues his head was dashed on the table as a result of which he sustained injury and in such situation it can never be a case of malicious prosecution and at the same time no sanction is required for prosecuting the petitioner as the act alleged can never be said to have done in discharge of the public duty.
(3.) I do find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of O.P. No.2. Keeping in view the nature of injury sustained by O.P. No. 2, the allegation levelled against the petitioner cannot be said to be malafide. At the same time, it can also be stated that the offence alleged can never be said to have been committed in discharge of the public duty and, thereby, no sanction is required for prosecuting the petitioner. Under the circumstances, this application stands dismissed.;