JUDGMENT 1. - The first petitioner Dashrath Singh is a Junior Engineer, second petitioner Shiv Bhagwan Sharma a helper and third petitioner Pawan Sharma a Line Man working in a Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Churu. On 18.09.2000 one. Aslam lodged a complaint in the Court of chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu alleging that on 16.09.2000 at about 3 P.M. the petitioners visited his shop, they abused and assaulted him. It is further alleged that they dragged him from the counter and assaulted with fists and feet. The learned magistrate recorded the statements of complainant Aslam and the other witnesses namely Kasam Ali and Fateh Mohd. He took cognizance for offence under Section 323, 504, 427 I.P.C. 2. The petitioners challenged the said order by way of revision and the same has been dismissed by order of the Sessions Judge, Churu dated 06.09.2001. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner Dashrath Singh lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Churu on 16.09.2000 stating inter alia that he along with Shri Shiv Bhagwan Sharma and Pawan Kumar conducting surprise check at the Readymade Garments Shop belonging to one Aslam son of Anwal Ali in the main Bazar, Chuni. They found that meter of the shop was tempered by the consumer namely Aslam. He stopped the meter by putting a wire in it. While they were inspecting the meter as part of the duty Aslam attached on them. After usual investigation the Police has filed a challan against Aslam for offence under Section 332 and 353 I.P.C. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the learned Magistrate has committed error in taking cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 323,504 and 427 even without ascertaining the correctness of the allegations made. If he could have sent the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the code of Criminal Procedure to the Police he would have come to know that the said complaint was filed as a counter blast. 4. I find substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel. It appears that Aslam did not even disclose the fact that the petitioners are the officers of the Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Churu. He has also not disclosed the fact that the FIR has already registered against him. 4. I find substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel. It appears that Aslam did not even disclose the fact that the petitioners are the officers of the Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Churu. He has also not disclosed the fact that the FIR has already registered against him. It clearly appears that the petitioners visited the shop of the Aslam for the inspector of the electricity meter. The complaint filed by Aslam appears to be a counter to the complaint by the petitioners. The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate his aspect on the matter. They were acting in discharge of their official duty. 5. Consequently a misc. petition is allowed, the order of the Sessions Judge, Churu dated 5.9.2001 as well as the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu dated 11.12.2000 passed on a private complaint No. 65/2000 taking cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 323,50 an d 4271.P.C. is quashed and set aside.Petition allowed. *******