Patna High Court
Ramchandra Chaudhary vs The State Of Bihar on 26 February, 1976
Equivalent citations: 1977CRILJ466
ORDER R.P. Sinha, J.
1. This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by the petitioner for setting aside an order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Darbhanga Sadar on the 10th of October, 1972, dismissing his complaint petition filed against the Superintendent of Police, Yogendra Nath Srivastava, Major (name not know), police line Iaheriasarai, and Sergeant Major (name not known), police line, Iaheriasarai on the 30th of August 1972. He had filed a petition in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Darbhanga Sadar to keep the petition of complaint pending till he was able to obtain sanction of the Government.
2. It appears that on the 12th of October, 1972, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order, in which he has stated that the petitioner had filed petition that steps were being taken for obtaining Government sanction for the prosecution and the case was adjourned and a long date was given. But as no sanction order had been obtained, as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint petition was dismissed on that account. Being aggrieved by the order this application under Section 561-A of the Code has been filed for setting aside the order dismissing the complaint.
3. There is a clear provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for making an application under Section 436 in case a petition of complaint is dismissed under Section 203 of the Code.
4. No application under that provision was made by the petitioner. Undoubtedly, this Court should be very reluctant to exercise its inherent power under Section 561-A of the Code, more particularly when there are other provisions under the Code under which an aggrieved party can take recourse. I do not find any reason why the petitioner did not choose to move under the provisions of Section 436 of the Code in this case. In my opinion, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is not such which this Court will be justified in interfering under the provisions of Section 561-A of the Code. Besides that the order is quite legal and proper. The petitioner himself had filed a petition before the Sub-divisional Magistrate that the complaint should be kept pending for obtaining sanction of the Government for prosecution. Since no sanction was obtained the impugned order was passed. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate could not do anything except to pass the order that he has passed. In this view of the matter, this application fails and is accordingly dismissed.