Patna High Court
Manraj And Anr. vs The State Of Bihar And Anr. on 5 August, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)BLJR1834
Author: Prasun Kumar Deb
Bench: Prasun Kumar Deb
JUDGMENT Prasun Kumar Deb, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code is for quashing the cognizance order dated 11.8.1992 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, in Chatra P.S. Case No. 103 of 1991 (G.R. No. 146/91) under Section 504/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. To appreciate the submissions made for and on behalf of the petitioners, the facts or the case are required to be reiterated. The Opposite Party No. 2 who happens to be a correspondent of the daily Newspaper "RANCHI EXPRESS" filed Complainant Petition No. 146 of 1991 on 29.8.1991 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, contending, inter-alia, that on 28.8.1991 at 2 p.m., the complainant alongwith another correspondent who happens to be the sole witness of the incident of daily Newspaper, "PRABHAT KHABAR" had gone to the office of petitioner No. 1 to make an enquiry from him regarding the alleged bunglings and illegalities in auctioning a Government Jeep by him and also regarding the auction of Charcoal. The petitioner No. 1 at the relevant time was the District Forest Officer at Chatra. A news item was published in the daily Newspapers as mentioned above regarding the bunglings of the auction of a departmental Jeep and Charcoal. The complainant and his companion could not get the petitioner No. 1 in his office but they were informed by the peon of the office that they were being called by petitioner No. 1 at this residence. Then the complainant alongwith his companion went to the residence of petitioner No. 1 and they took their seat in the official residence of petitioner No. 1 then the petitioner No. 1 brought out a written paper and asked them to sign on the papers which contained denial regarding the news published. They were being compelled by petitioner No. 1 to sign on those papers but they refused. They politely stated to petitioner No. 1 that they had come to know what was the reality regarding the alleged bunglings done by him in the auction of the Government Jeep and that they have not come up for him for issuance of any contradictions from him regarding the news published in their news papers. When they refused to sign the papers but forward by petitioner No. 1 he became infuriated and started abusing them with filthy words, the details of which had been given in the complaint petition itself. The petitioner No. 1 during the course of such abusing statement pushed Thakur Dhirendra Prasad and cought hold of his neck and at that moment, the petitioner No. 2 who happens to be the wife of petitioner No. 1 appeared in the scene with a danda in her hands and attacked upon Thakur Dhirendra Prasad who was the companion of the complainant, a correspondent of the daily Newspaper "Prabhat Khabar". The attack by danda was averted off by the complainant by raising his left hand as a result of which he sustained injury on the palm of his left hand and that the injury was serious and grievous in nature. According to the complainant, the incident not only insulted the complainant and his companion rather it was the insult to the society of Journalists. According to the complainant, they had given report to the local police station but no case was registered on the very date of accident and as such, they filed the complainant before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra. The complainant was entertained by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and sent it to the police with an endorsement to the effect that if no case was earlier instituted then the said complaint petition may be registered as a first information report and the investigation may be done. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against both the petitioners under the said sections of the Indian Penal Code and then cognizance was taken against them, hence this petition.
3. Mr. K.K. Jha Kamal, appearing for and on behalf of the petitioners attacked the order of cognizance on the following grounds:
(i) Although it was stated in the complaint petition which was afterwards treated and registered as first information report that the informant made an information in writing before the police prior to filing of the complaint petition, but in his statement which was reached under Section 161 of the Code during the course of investigation, the said statement had been contradicted. (ii) The complaint petition is silent about the registration number of Jeep which gives an impression that the incident was not specific with maticulous particular.
(iii) The auctioning was done be the petitioner No. 1 without the prior approval but afterwards approval was obtained.
(iv) Regarding the auction of charcoal, approval was not received by the higher authorities and although auction was done but the same was not materialised.
(v) Departmental enquiry was made regarding the alleged bunglings but the enquiry revealed no illegality being committed by the petitioner No. 1 and as such he had been exenorated and promoted too.
(vi) Cognizance is bad against the petitioner No. 1 as there is no sanction under Section 197 of the Code.
4. Mr. S.N. Singh, appearing for and on behalf of the complainant-opposite party No. 1 contended that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are all their defence case. At the relevant time when the charcoal ands the Jeep were put on auction, the fact remains that as per the admission of the complainant that there was no approval from the higher authorities. Moreover, according to Mr. Sinha, the incident is related to illegal auction and bungling by the petitioner No. 1 but the occurrence is with respect to the offences committed by the petitioners when the complainant and his companion were called at the official residence of petitioner No. 1 for disclosing the real facts regarding the alleged bungling but there the petitioners had mishandled the complainant and his companion which gave rise to the offences alleged.
5. About the first point, if there is any contradiction of the complainant/informant regarding giving information to the police before hand, the same may be considered, if the same is brought on record during the course of trial but this ground can in no case be considered as false, frivolous and vexatious prosecution, at this stage.
6. On the second point about non-mentioning of registration number of Jeep in the complaint petition/first information in report, it does, in, no way take away or falsify the incident itself. The first information report or the complaint petition cannot be considered as encyclopaedia or the whole prosecution case.
7. About points No. (iii), (iv) and (v), these are the defence cases which can be put by the defence at the time of trial. At the time of cognizance, those were not there before the learned court below. Exoneration from the departmental proceeding does in no way take away the criminal prosecution. Moreover when criminal prosecution is not related to the bungling but in relation to manhandling of the complainant and his companion who were Journalist, so those submissions from the side of the petitioners have got no bearing in questioning the order of cognizance.
8. About the last point, regarding sanction under Section 197 of the Code, Mr. K.K. Jha Kamal has led much strees on the two judgments of this Court in the case of Bali Ram Singh v. The State of Bihar (1989 BBCJ 400) and Ram Ekbal Singh v. The State of Bihar and Anr. (1989 BBCJ 544). The facts of the present case is totally different from the facts and circumstances of those cases. There is hairbreadth difference and variations as to the discharge of the official duty in commission of the alleged offence. The petitioner No. 1 is not a police officer. He had no authority in any way whatsoever to beat up or attempt to beat up any person and whether the act/offence alleged is in course of discharge of his official duty or not is a matter to be considered from the circumstances of each particular case and no hard and fast rule can be made or enunciated. In this respect, a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Swarath Yadav and Anr. v. Dr. Rajeshwar Prasad Singh and Anr. 1991 (1) PLJR 464, may be referred to.
9. Thus from the above discussions it can be concluded that the points raised from the side of the petitioners for challenging the order of cognizance have got no force and hence this petition is dismissed.