IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45935 of 2007 VED PRAKASH VERMA, S/O- SRI R.N.P. VERMA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BRAHAMPURA, P.S.- BRAHMPURA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DHARMENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, S/O- GHANSHYAM SHARMA, R/O- MOHALLA MAROOFGANJ, P.S.- MALSALAMI, PATNA CITY, DISTRICT- PATNA. For the petitioner : Mr. Ram Nath Modi, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ----------- 4 23.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order taking cognizance dated 18.11.2006 passed in C.A. case no. 416 of 2004. It appears that the complaint was lodged under diverse sections of Indian Penal Code. Learned court below on a careful consideration of the entire materials available on record has chosen to take cognizance under Sections 504 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was acting in official discharge of his duty and as such order taking cognizance without sanction is bad in law. Learned counsel on behalf of O.P. no. 2 on the other hand submits that the allegations for which cognizance was taken cannot be said to have any nexus with official duty. I have considered the submissions advances on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record including the impugned order. Allegation is that the accused forcibly entered into the godown and insulted with intention to provoke breach of piece. It is also the allegation that he snatched certain amount 2 from the cash box. This court, in view of the materials placed on record, is not inclined to interfere with the order. However, if at any stage of the trial/proceeding, it is found that the allegations had some nexus with the official duty and sanction was necessary for prosecution under those charges, the trial court shall stay the proceeding and call upon the complainant to produce the sanction order in respect of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )