Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2354 (PAT)

Ramadhar Sharma Bajpayee v. State Of Bihar

2010-10-26

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 19.2.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in Complaint Case No. 60 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 504, 323, 342 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(iii) and 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as "SC/ST Act"). 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp. Party No. 2, who was at relevant time posted as Amin under petitioner No. 1 (Dy. Collector, Saharsa) filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 60 of 1999 arraying the petitioners as accused for the offences under Sections 304, 504, 323, 342, 149 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(iii) and 3(x) of the SC/ST Act. It was alleged in the complaint petition that unauthorisedly his salary was withheld. The complainant had approached several authorities for payment of his due salary. It has also been alleged in the complaint petition that petitioner No. 1 was regularly addressing the complainant with his caste name and the petitioners had committed offence under the SC/ST Act. It was alleged that due to non-payment of due salary, he could not provide appropriate medicine to his son-in-law, who was under the care of the complainant. Subsequently, he died. Thereafter, he along with order employees had assembled in the Collectorate and only after intervention of the District Magistrate, the due payment was made. It has further been stated in the complaint petition that subsequently, the complainant was assaulted by accused persons in the public place. He was also abused with his caste name and it was alleged that accused persons had committed offence as stated above. After filing of the complaint petition, enquiry was conducted and thereafter by the impugned order i.e. order dated 19.2.1999 learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 504, 323, 342, 386 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(iii) and 3(x) of the SC/ST Act. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. Sri Akhileshwar Pd. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. Sri Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance has argued that whatever allegation has been made by the complainant against the petitioner was in relation to discharge of official duty of the petitioners. It was further stated that though petitioner No. 1 was the Controlling Officer of the complainant, he was not authorized to make payment of salary in favour of the complainant. He has submitted that salary was to be paid as per the order of the Dy. Collector, Tarapur. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred number of documents enclosed with the present petition, particularly Annexures-2, 3 and 4 to the petition. It has been submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that annexures categorically described that the petitioner No. 1 was not authorized to pass order for payment of salary. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Annexure 5 to the petition, which is an order, whereby he had forwarded the bill in relation to the payment in favour of the complainant of due salary as per the order of the Senior Officer. It has further been submitted that the learned Magistrate has completely failed to appreciate that in absence of the prosecution sanction, cognizance order was not required to be passed, particularly so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned. Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash the impugned order. 5. Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2 has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record, particularly the contents of the complaint petition as well as the impugned order of cognizance. After going through the record, the Court is of the opinion that while passing the order of cognizance, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed no error. The Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have not made out an exceptional case war-, ranting exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in their favour. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the petition stands rejected. The Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have not made out an exceptional case war-, ranting exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in their favour. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the petition stands rejected. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated .12.8.1999 stands automatically vacated.