Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.9754 of 2011 ====================================================== Manaur Alam, son of Md. Islam Ahmad, resident of Block Road, P.O. Narkatiaganj, P.S. Shikarpur, District- West Champaran, Bihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shrinath Prasad, son of Shree Dwarika Prasad, resident of near main Post Office, Jehanabad, District-Jehanabad, Bihar, presently posted as In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Narkatiaganj, West Champaran. 3. Doctor Chandra Bhushan, son of late Ram Sewak Ram, resident of Malidhar, P.O. Muzafarpur, P.S. Mithanpura, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar. presently posted as Medical Officer, Health Centre, Narkatiaganj, West Champaran, Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saket Tiwary, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 02-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.4.2010 passed in Shikarpur P.S. Case No.273 of 2009 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner under [STATUTE] . From the First Information Report it appears that on 31.10.2009 at about 11 A.M. the petitioner along with his associates entered into the hospital premises, and started discussion with Dr. Chandra Bhushan in connection with a Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9754 of 2011 (3) dt.02-07-2012 2 / 4 2 injury report. It has been alleged that the petitioner along with his associates have misbehaved with the Doctor, also broken chairs and other materials of the hospital. Even they have forcibly taken away some chairs and other materials. The petitioner and his associates have created a reign of terror which caused the patient to flee away from the hospital. After the investigation the court below has taken cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is R.T.I. activist sought information about his working from the opposite parties under Right to Information Act and for that he filed three applications dated 24.12.2008, 4.5.2009 and lastly on 31.10.2009 on that day the alleged occurrence has taken place. He further submits that the doctor in question has not been working properly and that was the reason for raising the grievance by the petitioner and this case has been filed in retaliation of the action taken by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. He further submits that on the applications filed by the petitioner action has been taken against doctor by the administration and it is out come of the said action and further submitted that the present case is out and out a case of malicious prosecution and nothing has happened in the hospital. He further submits Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9754 of 2011 (3) dt.02-07-2012 3 / 4 3 that Information Commissioner has also issued show-cause for not furnishing the information to the petitioner on the application filed by the petitioner. He further submits that this case is completely covered by the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Bhajan Lal, reported in A.I.R. 1992 SC 335. In contra, counsel for the State has controverted the argument of the petitioner and submits that his action or inaction is completely independent to the action taken by the administration. If the informant has committed some irregularities he would be liable for administrative action that will not absolve him for the alleged offence committed by him otherwise it would amount to giving licence to the petitioner for his act of vandalism. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, it is completely a case where the petitioner has gone to the hospital not only he discussed with the Doctor but he and his associates allegedly misbehaved with doctor created reign of terror and ransacked the hospital caused loss to the State by breaking the chairs, glass pans and other articles, that has been found true by the police during investigation. The petitioner can not have a licence to take the law in his own hand and to do whatever he likes. If the doctor derelicted in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9754 of 2011 (3) dt.02-07-2012 4 / 4 4 his duty he is liable for a departmental proceeding, that will not authorize the petitioner to create a reign of terror in the hospital and embark on rampage and vandalism. In this case the petitioner and his associates have gone to the hospital misbehaved with doctor caused loss to the State also. This Court is convinced that it is not a malicious prosecution and is not covered by the judgment of Bhajan Lal case (supra). In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any merit in this application. The application is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the points before the court below at the time of framing of charge. Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 353

Statute Text:
Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. Assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.