JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - Heard. 2. The order dated 18.11.2000 passed by Learned SDJM(S), Cuttack in I.C.C. No. 93 of 2000 is assailed by the Petitioner, who is a Police Inspector. According to the Petitioner on being instructed by the Superintendent of Police, he went to serve the suspension order upon Sri Hariram Singh the father of the opposite party. Being aggrieved the said Hariram got a complaint petition filed through his daughter, inter alia, alleging that the Petitioner has committed offences punishable under Sections 448, 294, 323 and 506(2) of the Indian penal Code. According to Mr. Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, all the allegations are false, frivolous and are made only with an avowed oblique motive of harassing the Petitioner, who is a Police Officer and was discharging his public duties. Mr. Das further submitted that the Court below without realizing the said fact has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences and the order is otherwise not tenable and that none of the ingredients of Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code are made out. This fact may be kept in mind by the Court below while framing charges. He further submitted that no sanction as mandatorily required u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been obtained and the proceeding should be dropped in limine. 3. The submissions made by Mr. Das are strongly repudiated by Mr. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the complainant-opposite party. According to Mr. Mohapatra the Petitioner, who is an accused, has tansgressed his limits and acted in a manner not befitting a Police Officer and as such the Court below has rightly taken cognizance of the offences. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials available. After going through the impugned order, I do not find any infirmity or illegality and decline to interfere with the same. Learned SDJM has applied his mind and on being prima facie satisfied, took cognizance. At the time of taking cognizance, the Court is not required to hear the opposite party. All the sub missions made by Mr. Das may be available to him by way of defence and/or at the time of framing of charges. 5. Learned SDJM has applied his mind and on being prima facie satisfied, took cognizance. At the time of taking cognizance, the Court is not required to hear the opposite party. All the sub missions made by Mr. Das may be available to him by way of defence and/or at the time of framing of charges. 5. In view of the settled position of law, without interfering with the impugned order, I dispose of this CRMC giving liberty to the Petitioner to raise all his points at the time of framing of charge or at relevant stage in course of trial. 6. However, considering the fact that the Petitioner is a Police servant, I direct that if a petition is filed u/s 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court below the same shall be liberally considered. Crl. Misc. Petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed