Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.37299 of 2010 ====================================================== Ashok Kumar Singh, Son of Late Raghubansh Singh, resident of Village- Hajipur, S.D.O. Road, District-Vaishali, the then O/C (S.H.O.) Bachhawara Begusarai at present S.H.O. Laxmipur, District-Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER --------------------- 2 27-04-2012 Head learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of order dated 31.08.2010 passed in Cr.Revision No.144 of 2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge II, Begusarai, whereby the revision preferred against order of cognizance dated 26.03.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No.2142 C of 2008 was dismissed. By the said order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] and directed for summoning the accused persons including the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner at the relevant time was the Officer Incharge of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37299 of 2010 (2) dt.27-04-2012 2 / 4 2 Bachhwara Police Station and against the complainant an F.I.R. was lodged, in which he was taken into custody. The F.I.R. vide Bachhwara P.S. Case No.117 of 2008 was registered against the complainant under Sections 25(1-b)A/26/27 /35 of the Arms Act on 13.09.2008 on the self-statement of the petitioner. He submits that since the complainant was arrested by the petitioner, while he was discharging his official duty, the learned Magistrate on such complaint before taking cognizance was required to ask the complainant to produce the prosecution sanction. He submits that order of cognizance and revisional order are liable to be set aside on both grounds i.e. absence of prosecution sanction as well as malicious prosecution. The complainant had filed a specific complaint disclosing therein that while he was going to his field, he was chased by four accused persons. Anyhow, he wanted to save his life and confined himself in the house of one Gupteshwar Choudhary. Thereafter, the petitioner being Officer Incharge arrived there and instead of taking any action against accused persons, who had opened fire on the complainant and his brother, the petitioner took the complainant to the Police Station and he was unauthorisedly locked in the lock-up at the instance of accused Arvind Chaudhary. It was alleged that the complainant was also assaulted Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37299 of 2010 (2) dt.27-04-2012 3 / 4 3 by the petitioner and subsequently on the instruction of accused Rajnish Kumar Choudhary, who was the member of Zila Parishad, the petitioner forcefully obtained signature of the complainant on plain papers and on a false accusation, fabricated a case and the complainant was detained from 13.09.2008 and 15.09.2008 in the police lock up. The learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry on the complaint petition has passed the order of cognizance, which was assailed by the petitioner before the revisional court. On going through the materials on record, the Court is of the opinion that there is no error either in the order of cognizance or in the order of revisional court. Moreover, once the petitioner has preferred revision against order of cognizance and it was rejected, the petitioner is not entitled to avail second revision in the garb of filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly, I do not find any substance in assailing the order of cognizance on the ground of absence of prosecution sanction. It was not disputed that the petitioner was at the relevant time Sub Inspector of Police and he was not removable either by the State or the Government of India and, as such, he may not get any protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since there is no illegality in the order of cognizance nor in the order of revisional court, the Court is of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37299 of 2010 (2) dt.27-04-2012 4 / 4 4 opinion that no order can be passed in favour of the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.