{.i. -fts. ]:« ! HI6M COURT OP CHHATT1S6ARH AT BILASPUR CR.M.P.NO 163 OF 2006 PETITIONER RESPON&ENTS Vs. Rdju @ Rajnflrayan State of Chhattlsgarh & anr I (•'1 POST FOR ORDERS ON 27THSEPTEMBER. 2007 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge •i: .'"*... ?•-•:'.':v eBi• i!nii;; HI^HCOURT CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No. 163/2006 Raju ©Rajnarcyan Sahu, S/o tate 5hri Sunderlo] Sahu, aged about 40 1 yrs. -ft/o Nehru ^CRowk, Bulodabazar, (>istpjct Ratpur (C6) PETITIONER Vs RESPONOENTS 1. Stdte of Chhattisgct'h, Throygh Secretary, Home, Police beportment, Mantr'aloya Raipur (C.(5.)|;, -„, ,: • :: 2. P^N..fypadhyoy, the then Station House Officer, Balodabazar, Dist. Raipur. Present; Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Beriwal,"t5y. Adv. (Seneral for respondent No.l OR E> E R . {Passedon 27.9.2007) Per Dhirendrd Mishra. JJL 1. I.A. No.1/07, application for faking documerrts on record is allowed. 2. The petitioner by the instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminnl Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'Cr.P.C.') has prayed for setting asjde fhe oirder dated 28.8.2006 j (Annexure P-1) passed fc>y learned 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar in Criminal Revision No.,141/06 whereby the revisionial court has rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner herein against^ the order dated 6;3.2006 (Annexure P-4J passed in an unregis-^red case whereby the Judicial Magistrgte 1 Class, Batod Bazar has dismisseet the complaint fjled by the petitioner herein against respondent No;2 herein. the :M !e:""Ui!ai.sS stated facts are that the tietitiot'ieRtiet'sig'iliit^clSsl ^'^^^.'.K%%:<:':^-SSSWB!%g3iiS^ icomplqint unyer: Sections^.9:^';t^I3j^|%|»%i^38WlBiUK8ffiSJUBB In<:liian;'Penat:.Co<:le (for • sh;e]i'-l~^'il|(|j||itg|(j||§|| ^^, ^^^ ^ci^i^ il^^J- :sjiSj8iiacBSS[i l.t{ ^:~-5^^-^,.; ^wsnSsK^svs. +wro|duio:> ac|4. 4jot|+ panSiit! si 4.1 (S8"<>N a+'ON) 'il3SAtJS<l"W (l) £002 "! ps+^odau AapuDd >iD«i(sa|U«D5| SA Aioy ,toijSi}| Foy j,o .la++plu a4+ ui .i.usuiSpnr si,|+ uodn 6wf.\sy . "2?'tl"-<3 S4+ J-° ,Z6I UO!+33S -ispun UOI+OUDS j.o uoi+aa+o.id o+ pS|4.!+us +ou si jssij.j.o S3i|od 40115 puDaSDS as|Dj. D ui uos.od D SUIDJ^. o+ jaoj^.j.o 6uj+D6j4.s3Auj 31)4. ^o X+np a(.|+ ^o suou sj +! tDt)+ psnGup si 4.1 (">IDH 9 "F"nd) OT 30N "i"T!^3 S86T "! P3+'loda^ (dSl) (dS? "'Bjy JDMFV •SA tod tisautpy j.o jsu01" a4+ ui 4.usui6pnr 3^+ uo s3UDi|a4 6ui3B|(j •g '9003"8"8Z PS+DP I-d 311nxsuuV j-° >i3p>io psu6nduii si)+ Aq p3+33J*3U OS|D SDM aSUOj+1+sd St)+ Aq psj.ia^.sjd UOISIAS.) si|+ puo g-o^ +uspuodsa^ at)+ 6uj4.n33so.id ^o^ 4.uauiu>isAog) a+D+9 3tl+ j-° UO!'!-;:?UDS psuiD+qQ +ou SD^ ^suoi+i+sd 31.1+4.044. puno.iC si(4. uo A[UO 90Q2'£'9 pa+Dp ^-(] a.inxauuy 40 jsp^o apjA 3SD3 4.U!D|duio3 31.1+ ps+osfsj a+D^+sjSow |Di3ipnf atjj^ •^ •SSSUppD 3+S[dU103Uj UO puno^G 3tj4. uo 3+°+S 34+ ^q pau^n+sj SBM suios 31)4. 'jaAamo^ 'Z'°N 4.uapuodss>i s+noasoAcj o+ uoissitu.iad uoj. "3'd'>i3 ®4+ ^° Z6T UOI+33S >l3puri UOj+D31|ddD UD pSAOUI pDtj a[-| '2"°N +uapuodsa>i Aq paujj.uoo puD sgusj.j.o SAoqD 34+ 4+iM UOJ4.33UU03 ui ps+ssujo SBM uauoi+j+ad 341 -^DZDg opo|og 'aSpnf suoissas louoi+ippy p^ ai)4. Xq gOOZ'TT'ST pa+op 2-<j ajnxsuuy j.o japjo apiA UOISIA.SU uj pst|spnb SOM g-ON 4.uapuods3u Aq paijj.Btjso64.si j.oyisoq at|+ uo s+cj+siCDvy ff' ' ' • •' . ' |DuojsjAiQ qn$ 34+ Aq psssDtl ^spdo AuDUjUiiiadd 'sosusl.im a+D^siSDvy |Bj3ipnf ai.|4. /q pa++inb3c uaaq 504 jaupj+j+sct ai|j. •.(ozog op0|og 'Sso\y ^], 3+oj+si6l:i^y |oj3jpnf puo jozog Dpo|og 's.l.Dj+sitiDvy IDUOISJAIO qng j.o s+unos si|+ ui o^soB+si ps|i^. puo uiitj 4.sujD6o SSSBO SS|BJ. p3^Dda^d ujausi.i^auoi+j+sd 34+ 3UID^.3p pUD ESD^Dq. 04. UOj+US+lil,! UD 4-1,!<* up>iai| g'o|^ 4.uapuods3>i +i>4+ suo!.4.D63||o 344. i.|4.im ujs^a^ g'oN ni } t •^w ^' ik^f.. be quashed at initiat stgge and where the act is not in the discharge of duty, no^sanction is required. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that from peFusal of the complaint it is clear that pespondent No.2-5tatlpn House Officer, Po^ice Station Baloda Bazar in the discharge of his official duty registered certain offences under the fiambling Act and also initiated preventive pi|oceedings under the Cr.P.C. and Istgasha was filed, as per- requirement of law, in the court of 5ub Divisional Magistrate. A bare perusal of the complaint goes to show that acts alieged against the respondent No.2 were done by him during the discharge of his public duty and dfter due investi9ation Istgasha was filed by him in the Court of competent jurisdiction. The revisionat court, by impugned order after considering the objections preferred by the petitioner in detail, has rejected the pevision dnd upheld the order of the Judicial Magistrate. Both the courts below on the basis of allegations present in the complaint have recorded a finding of fact that-the action taken by respondent No.2 was in the drschorge of his public duty and therefore, this petition in the garb of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondentNo.l-5tate. ' 8. The Judicidl Magistrate disinissgd the complaint for wdnt of sanction with a finding that from perusal of the complaint it appears that theaccused took action|against the cofflplainant in diScharge of his official duty iand^ therefore,sanction of the State ©overnmenturider SectiSn 19'^jofGp.R.C.isnecBSsaryfor re>gistration of o'ffeJK|^| agaij'ist ^he^publiic servant. The revisional court tf^'. ^. vw i ;!' l]i!;;S; iSri;!?: 4 rejected the criminal revision of the petitioner herein by a detailed and reasonad order. 9. So far as the judgments cited by tearned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the cited cases are distjnguishable on faets, as in the matter crf Ramesh Pal (supra) allegation of inflicting torture during investigation was made ggainst the accused police officer, whereas, in ^ • .; ' the matter of Raj Kishon'^oy (supra) allegations were made agqinst the police officer that he had falsety implicated the complainant and his brother in order to teach them a lesson for not paying anything to himand accordingly, an iltegal weapon and cdrtridges were brought by the police officer and the same were falsety shown to have been recovered from the complainantand his brother and in the light of the facts of that case, it was hetd that view of the Hi9h Court was not right that even if these facts are true, then atso the case would come within the purview of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. In this judgment it has also been held that general proposition of taw is that bar under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory where theact has been done by thepublic servgnt in the course of his service or in the discharge of his duty and there can be no dispute with that proposition. I.However, in the instant case from bare perusal of the comptaint it is clear that respondent No.2 initiated preventive measyres against th^ petitioner undep Sections 107 & 117 of the Cr.P.C.,filed Istgasha before the Sub Divisional Magistrcte, who passed preliminary order, which * was subsequently set aside.in acriminal reviaion preferred by the petitioner herein. Respondent No,;2 also filed Istgashaunder Sections 3& 4 of the fiafflbting Act in which ; ^ al^o the q^ccused was acquitted. Therefore, both^he_£ourts] I'jif 1 1 .1 1 ^^k:.;3^^!^l^^^^;^^3?^:?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^g^^^^^^^^g^^^^^^^^^^^^^' below have dismissed the cofflplaint with a findmg that all the acts attributed to respondent No.2 were done by him during discharge of his official duty. ll.After 90in9 thpough th-e impugned orders, this Cburt is sdtisfied that the Courts betow have not cofflmitted ariy illegatity or infirmity jn passing the impughed Opders, which call for interference in exercise under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. . ! t - .' • 12.In the pesult, the petition Being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed dnd it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- DhiTendra Mishra Judge Roshan/-