Sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC is not required at the stage of taking cognizance if the allegations in the complaint do not indicate that the accused was acting under Sections 127 and 128 of the CrPC.

B.D.Singh, J.

1. These two applications have been filed by two different sets of petitioners. In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 136 of 1975, the petitioner is Rajendra Singh, whereas in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1007 of 1975, the petitioners are Kapildeo Singh and six others. In both the cases, Jagdish Singh, who is one of the opposite party, is the complainant. In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 136 of 1975, the State of Bihar has also been made as opposite party No. 1. The petitioners in the two cases have filed an application in this court separately under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated the 16th November, 1974 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, taking cognizance against the petitioners in the two applications under Sections 379, 384 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint lodged by Jagdish Singh (opposite party) and transferred the case to Sri N.K. Kanth, Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Aurangabad, for disposal.

2. Since the complaint in both the applications is common and the order taking cognizance is also common passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, on the complaint lodged by Jagdish Singh, the two applications have been heard together and this judgment will govern both of them.

3. In order to appreciate the points involved in these two applications it is accessory to state some material facts to be gathered from the two applications. On the 18th December, 1972 the opposite party Jagdish Singh, filed a petition of complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aurangabad, alleging therein that on the 16th December, 1972, the accused persons including the officer-in- charge of Daudnagar police station, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police and sole petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 136 of 1975, with armed force arrived at the disputed land variously armed in respect of a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code which was pending. The said Sub-Inspector of Police ordered to harvest the standing crops of the disputed lands which were grown by the complainant, and, the other accused persons who are the petitioners in the other case cut away the standing crops and kept them in the Khalihan of Narsingh Singh, and, the complainant thus suffered a loss of Rs. 1,000/-. It was further alleged that the complainant protested to the cutting of the crops and thereafter the Sub-Inspector of Police Rajendra Singh got the hands of the complainant tied with the help of the armed force and took him on his jeep to village Arai. Rajendra Singh demanded Rs. 400/- for his release and threatened that if the money was not paid, he would be sent to jail and would be implicated in a number of cases. The complainant thereafter got the money through Padum Singh village Arai and the said amount was paid to Rajendra Singh, Sub- Inspector, who then released the complainant. The Sub-Divisional Officer examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and sent the matter to Sri R. N. Pandey, Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, for enquiry under Section 202 of the Code. Sri Pandey made a thorough enquiry and submitted a report that no prima facie case was made out against Rajendra Singh. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, after receiving the said report, took cognizance against the petitioners, and transferred the case for trial to Sri Jiwan Tigga, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. The 4th of November, 1974 was the date fixed for issue of summons in the aforesaid case but the complainant did not appear on the 4th November, 1974, nor did he file any process for issue of summons and, hence, the case was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 204(4) of the Code. On the 16th November, 1974 the complainant again filed a fresh complaint on the same facts, and, on the basis of this complaint dated the 16th November, 1974, the impugned order was passed. In the application, a prayer has be