In the High Court of Judicature at Patna Cr. Misc.No. 20767 of 2007 Sanjai Kumar @ Sanjai Singh Versus The State of Bihar & Anr. ---------------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Jaganth Singh,Advocate For the Opp. party no.2:- Mr. B.P. Pandey, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.C. Giri & Mr. P.K.Sinha,Advocates For the State: Mr. M.N. Jha, APP -------------- 5 14.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned APP for the State. In the complaint filed by opposite party no.2 order of cognizance dated 20.3.2007 has come to be passed against the petitioner under sections 323, 341, 447, 380 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner who was Officer Incharge of Bachchawara Police Station arrived at the door step of opposite party no.2 on 13.8.2006 at about 4.00 P.M. with six other police constables duly armed. The purpose of visit of the petitioner to the house of the complainant was to attach the property of one Sanjay Rai under sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. since he was an absconder in yet another police case. The complainant objected to any action being taken by the petitioner against her on the ground that she was separated from the said Sanjay Rai by metes and bounds. His house was an adjacent house and she was living alone by herself in her house since her husband had gone at Saudi Arabia for his livelihood. But all his pleas and objections raised by the complainant (Opp. Party no. 2) was - 2 - brushed aside, armed practice was adopted and thereafter properties of all kind was taken way without giving any seizure list. Based on the complaint and the evidence on S.A., cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has ample protection under law since whatever he did was a part and parcel of his official duty duly assigned by the court of law and he has committed no wrong and he cannot be proceeded in the said case. This Court does not want to record various facet of the allegation and submission made on behalf of opposite party no.2 in this regard. In view of the fact the Court is not willing to interfere with the order of cognizance at this stage. These are the matters which the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should first urge at the stage of framing of charge and if the occasion still arises he has liberty to invoke the power of superior court thereafter. There is some evidence to show that the petitioner might have exceeded the authority or power vested in him under the law and not every action of his falls within the definition of performance of public duty. This application is dismissed with above liberty. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)