Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10959 of 2011 (4) dt.03-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10959 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Nashiuddin Khan @ Nuruddin Khan Late Jahiruddin Khan Resident Of Village- Sabiganj, P.S.- Bhagwan Bazar, District- Saran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Vidhan Chandra Bhardwaj @ Vigyan Chndra Bhardwaj Naresh Chandra Rai Resident Of Village- Dahiya, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Begusarai .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Bela Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Janul Abedin, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 03-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case, petitioner is challenging the order dated 11th April 2000 whereby ands whereunder the Court has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . In the FIR it has been stated that while the petitioner was tilling his field on 14th July 1991, Yogendra Prasad, Officer In-charge of Bhagwanpur, constable Nashiuddin Khan along with his four associates armed with rifle came there , seized the vehicle and brought him to the Police Station because he had not paid Hapta to the Police. He was not only assaulted but also he was put in Hazat and only on payment of money, he could be released Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10959 of 2011 (4) dt.03-08-2012 from the Police Station. Thereafter the complainant filed the complaint petition in the court below and on the basis of S.A. cognizance was taken under the aforesaid Sections. Counsel for the petitioner has raised the point that the complaint case has been filed because the officials had gone there to arrest the petitioner in connection with a criminal case filed against him vide Begusarai P.S.Case no. 65 of 1991 under [STATUTE] so much so that a point has been raised that the court below has taken cognizance without having sanction from the proper authority. So far the point of sanction is concerned, this Court is not deciding as to whether the sanction was required or not, which will be seen at the time of trial as the nature of allegation made in the complaint petition is such that it is difficult to say that he was discharging official duty. But the court below will examine the statement that the Police is said to have gone there in connection with Begusarai P.S.Case No. 65 of 1991. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in(2008)9 SCC140 (Bholu Ram v. State of Pubjab) in Para-63 has stated that the point of sanction can be seen at the stage of trial and that cannot be a ground for quashing the order of cognizance, as such, the issue of sanction will be raised by the petitioner during the trial and the trial court will Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10959 of 2011 (4) dt.03-08-2012 decide this point. So far malicious prosecution is concerned the present case has been filed to pressurize the petitioner in connection with aforesaid case. These are the matters of fact which will be seen during the trial. This Court does not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to raise all the points at the appropriate stage of trial. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 447

Statute Text:
Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal trespass. Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.