Judgment

Nanavati, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 799/1982.

2. Respondent No. 1 Kamla Prasad Singh has filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna alleging that on 30.3.1982 a Police party headed by Respondent No. 2 raided his house without ob­taining any warrant of search any while carrying out the search Re­spondent Nos. 2 to 4 assaulted his wife, abused her and other persons present in the house and took away certain articles belonging to him. Thus Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have committed offences punishable under Sections 451, 452, 453, 456, 457, 458, 380, 334, 426 and 120B IPC.

3. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the com­plainant felt some doubt about the correctness of his version and, therefore, decided to hold an inquiry under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code. During the inquiry the complainant, his wife and his two brothers-in-law who were stated to be present at the time of incident; were examined. The complainant refused to examine Shri J.C. Das, Executive Magistrate who was also present when the raid was carried out. After considering the evidence thus gathered, the learned Magistrate held that there is no evidence to show that there was an assault on his wife or that respondents 2 to 4 has misbehaved with her or any other person in the house. The learned Magistrate also found that the raid was carried out by the 3 police officers under supervi­sion of Shri J.C. Das, the Executive Magistrate. He also found that search and seizure lists were prepared and copies thereof were given to Nagendra Kumar, brother-in-law of the complainant who was present at the time of the raid. It appeared to the learned Magistrate that the acts alleged to have been committed by respondents 2 to 4 were done under the colour of their office and while discharging their official duty. He, therefore, held that no cognizance of any of the offences could be taken against them in absence of the required sanc­tion under Section 197 of the Code.

4. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court. The High Court without considering the relevant aspects pointed out by the learned Magistrate and without going through the record itself held that “version of the occurrence stated in the complaint has been supported by prosecution witnesses. It cannot also be said that even if the evidence is accepted to be correct, no offence is made out.” The High Court further observed that only the allegations made in the complaint should have been considered by the learned Magistrate and the allegations clearly show that the police officers cannot be said to have acted like that in discharge of their duties. It, therefore, held that no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required. The High Court allowed the Revision Application and directed the Magistrate to hold further inquiry in accordance with law. Pursuant to the decision of the High Court the learned Magistrate on 22.8.1987 took cognizance of the offences and directed issuance of process against respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

5. The State has filed this Appeal against the order passed by the High Court. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have filed an application for transposing them as Appellants. Therein it is stated that Respondent No. 3 has died during the pendency of this appeal.

6. What is contended by the learned counsel for the State is that the High Court committed an error of law in holding that the learned Magistrate was required to consider only the allegations made in the complaint and no other material. He also submitted that the High Court erroneously held that the evidence collected during the inquiry under Section 202 supports the allegations made in the complaint.

7. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant that during the inquiry under Section 202 it has come on record that an offence was registered against the co