Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16952 of 2011 ====================================================== Manoj Kumar Singh son of Kamweshwar Prasad Singh, resident of village- Kulharia, PS-Khodwar,District-Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Poonam Kumari wife of Shivnath Kr. Nirala, resident of Mohalla- Mustafabad, M.I.G., 132 Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Colony, PS- Rampur, District-Gaya. …. Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 28-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 1.7.2010 arising from Trial No. 2158 of 2010 by which the court below has taken cognizance for offences under [STATUTE] and under section 3 (x) (xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. From the F.I.R. it appears that the petitioner had entered into the house of the informant in the dead night and they misbehaved with the inmate and had also taken away valuables from her house. A complaint case was filed before the court below who has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . The Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16952 of 2011 (2) dt.28-08-2012 2 / 4 2 complainant was not satisfied with the order of Magistrate and she moved before the Revisional Court in Cr. Rev. No. 08 of 2008/44 of 2008 who remanded back the matter and after that the court of Magistrate has taken cognizance for offences under [STATUTE] and 3 (x) (xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in official duty, received information that extremists had assembled for committing a crime and on that basis, not only the petitioner but Officer Incharge of another Police station went there to nab those extremists. The counsel for the petitioner submits that in search operation, the Police had recovered the materials i.e. Cap-1, Uniform Plaint-2 Uniform Shirt-1, Carbine Poach-1, Diary-1, Revolver Cover-1, Cartridges Belt-1, Diary-1, Revolver Cover-1, Cartridge Belt-1, Empty Gun Cartridges-2, Empty Rifle Catridge- 1 and one Attache and three persons, namely, Vijay Paswan, Ganesh Paswan and Hari Nandan Paswan were also apprehended from their houses but they were released from the Police custody in the next morning. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has wrongly taken cognizance without taking note of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16952 of 2011 (2) dt.28-08-2012 3 / 4 3 sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. and as such, whole effort of the Magistrate in taking cognizance is illegal. The counsel for the State has disputed the argument and submitted that in the dead night when there was no case pending against those inmates, there was no occasion for the petitioner along with the others to enter into the house of a citizen to create reign of terror. He has further submitted that even after the search and seizure no case was filed against any person aprehended and as such, the contention of the petitioner that he had gone to his official duty is not sustainable. At this stage, this Court does not want to enter into the merit of the case. The order of sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. can be decided at any stage of the proceeding. The question of necessity of sanction may have to be decided stage to stage and it will be dependent on, as to whether alleged act done has any nexus with his official duty which cannot be looked into at this stage and it can only be seen at the trial stage. In this connection, the judgment reported in 2007 (1) SCC 1 (Prakash Singh Badal Vs. State of Haryana) will be relevant and as such, this Court does not find any illegality in the present case. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to raise all the points before the court below Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16952 of 2011 (2) dt.28-08-2012 4 / 4 4 at the time of framing of charge. With this observation, this petition is dismissed. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, 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.