Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 722 (PAT)

Darshan Singh v. State Of Bihar

1997-09-30

A.N.TRIVEDI

body1997
Judgment ASHISH N.TRIVEDI, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1, an Assistant Security Commissioner and petitioner No. 2, an Inspector in the Railway Protection Force (for short R.P.F.) were posted at Gaya at the relevant time and have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. praying that the order dated 22.6.1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate in Case No. G.R. 224/92/Tr. No. 966/92 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 322 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed. 2. From the averments made in the petition it appears that a complaint case No. 224 of 1992 was lodged by the Complainant-Opposite Party No. 2, Kumar Singh Barua, Ticket Collector, Gaya Junction against the petitioner and one Ram Nath Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police on 25.4.1992 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya alleging, inter alia, that on 14.4.1992 at 6.50 a.m. while the complainant was on duty at the main gate of Gaya Junction Petitioner No. 1 came and wanted to go outside and on demand by the complainant to produce the ticket, Petitioner No. 1 abused him and also assaulted him with fist and slaps and it was further alleged that petitioner No. 2 and Ram Nath Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, G.R.P., Gaya also came and dragged the Complainant to the G.R.P Police Station where also the petitioners assaulted the complainant. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No. 2 made a written petition to the G.R.P., Gaya which was recorded as Station Diary No. 371 of 1992 and the complainant was thereafter forwarded to the Railway Hospital for treatment. 3. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No. 2 made a written petition to the G.R.P., Gaya which was recorded as Station Diary No. 371 of 1992 and the complainant was thereafter forwarded to the Railway Hospital for treatment. 3. Petitioner No. 2 on 14.4.1992 got a secret information that a Ticket Travelling Inspector who was to board 3009 Up Train on duty would be carrying tickets collected at the gate of the railway junction which were to be re-sold and, therefore, petitioner No. 2 along with other personnels of R.P.F., near the main gate of Gaya Railway Station, were keeping a vigil and when they found that the T.T.I, arrived at the gate and the Opposite Party No. 2 who was a Ticket Collector collected the tickets from him which had been collected by the Ticket Collector from the passengers of 3009 Up Train which had arrived and when the said T.T.I, was about to board the train at about 6.50 a.m. he was challenged by petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 2 asked him to accompany him to the G.R.P. Police Station but many T.T.Is. along with Chief Inspector of Tickets came and rescued the said T.T.I. from the personnel of R.P.F. and helped him boarding the train and the petitioner No. 2 was threatened by the said persons. 4. Thereupon petitioner No. 2 filed an information with the G.R.P., Gaya which was registered as G.R.P. Case No. 47/92 dated 14.4.1992 under Sections 143, 353, 224 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 145 and 146 of the Indian Railways Act at about 7.20 a.m. on 14.4.1992 as per the instructions of petitioner No. 1. It is alleged that Opposite Party No. 2 instituted malicious prosecution by way of the complaint with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance with the petitioners and the order taking cognizance is bad for variety of reasons and, therefore, sanction as required under Section 197 Cr. PC. has not been obtained. 5. Sri T. K. Jha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the provisions contained in sub-section 3 of Section 20 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the petitioners cannot be prosecuted save and except as required under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act. 5. Sri T. K. Jha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the provisions contained in sub-section 3 of Section 20 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the petitioners cannot be prosecuted save and except as required under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act. Learned Counsel referred to the provisions of Section 11 (b) and Section 15 of the Act and submitted that it was the duty of the petitioners to protect and safeguard the railway property and every superior officer and member of the force for the purposes of the Act is to be considered to be always on duty at any time throughout India and it was in discharge of the duties conferred by the Act that the petitioners had apprehended the Ticket Collector and, therefore, the prosecution was bad in absence of the compliance of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act against the Petitioner more so the petitioner No. 1, bing on officer appointed by the Central Government, sanction under Section 197 Cr. PC. having not been obtained, the order taking cognizance against the petitioners is wholly without jurisdiction and placed reliance on a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in D.S. Bhoria and another V/s. N. Singh, 1970 Cri. L.J. 642 : 1969 PLJR 234 paragraphs 6 and 7, in which it was held that an officer or a member of the R.P.F. can only be prosecuted if the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act are complied. Learned Counsel further placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana V/s. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, and contended that there being an express legal bar for initiation and continuance of proceedings against the petitioners under the Act, the order taking cognizance is liable to be quashed. 6. Sri Uday Bhanu Roy, learned Counsel for the Complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 contended that the acts committed by the petitioners constituted offences disclosed in the complaint filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 and the truth or falsity of the same cannot be examined in these proceedings and further submitted that prima facie case has been made out for prosecution of the petitioners in view of the allegations made in the complaint. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Fulena Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1979 PLJR 220, in which it was held that the protection under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act is not absolute and is confined with respect to any act done in discharge of the duties, and for anything done or intended to be done under the powers conferred by, or in pursuance of any provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it was held that non-compliance of Section 20 (3) of the Act was not fatal and the complaint was not barred by law. 7. Having considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the parties and the material on record, I am of the opinion that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the complaint (Annexure-1) it has been alleged that the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 was on duty at the main gate of Gaya Railway Station when petitioner No. 1 came at the gate and wanted to go outside and when the complainant demanded the ticket from Petitioner No. 1, who was unknown to the complainant as he was not in uniform, Petitioner No. 1 started abusing the complainant and on being asked to behave properly, the petitioners as also Ram Nath Singh. Dy. S.P., G.R.P., Gaya, accused No. 3 assaulted the complainant with fists and slaps and the protest of the complainant evoked no response and thereafter the complainant was dragged to the G.R.P. Police Station where all the accused again assaulted the complainant. 9. From the allegations made in the complaint, the truth or falsity of which is not to be examined in these proceedings, it prima facie appears that a case for prosecution of the petitioners under Sections 342, 323 and 322 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Further in the petition it is claimed that petitioner No. 1 had valid ticket as well as the railway metal pass meant for railway officers and there was no reason not to produce it on demand and it has been further stated that petitioner No. 1 was coming back after attending railway week at Calcutta and was on duty at the material time. However, from the averments made in the petition it is not prima facie established that either of the petitioners were on duty or were deputed to keep a vigil for the alleged racket of re-selling of sued tickets by the Ticket Collector or the Ticket Travelling Inspector. These are matters which are dependent on appreciation of evidence and if permissible in law may be raised at the time of framing of charges. I find no merit in this petition. 10. In the result, the petition is dismissed.