CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2006) 07 PAT CK 0055

Janardan Rai vs The State of Bihar and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 27 July 2006 · Citation: (2006) 4 PLJR 24

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mridula Mishra, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4729 of 2005

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 325 words

Mridula Mishra, J.—Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 30.6.2001 whereby cognizance has been taken by CJM, Muzaffarpur against the petitioner under sections 323, 341 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(10) of S.C. ST. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 41/2000.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on two grounds. Firstly, the cognizance has been taken without obtaining sanction for prosecution by the competent authority. Allegation against the petitioner has been made while he was discharging his official duty. Allegation against the petitioner has been made with regard to his act relating to discharge of official duty at Zila School, Muzaffarpur. Secondly, it has been submitted that the prosecution is a malicious prosecution. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case at the instance of some influential person. Though, in the entire case diary, not a single witness has supported the prosecution case. Hence, it is case of no evidence. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that in respect of the same allegation, a departmental proceeding has been initiated in which he has been exonerated from the charges.

3.

On consideration of entire material as well as the evidence collected during investigation, it is apparent that none of the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. So far the sanction for prosecution is concerned, it can be obtained even after the cognizance. It has been held in several decisions that it is not mandatory that at initial stage, the sanction for prosecution should be obtained. This application is being allowed and the impugned order dated 30.6.2001 is quashed on consideration of the facts that this is a case of no evidence as none of the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution during the investigation and that there was no material before the Magistrate for taking cognizance except the charge-sheet.