Back
1979 Supreme(Pat) 208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Manoranjan Prasad, J.
Sadan Singh and Another - Appellants
Vs.
Ram Sagar Singh - Respondent
Cr. Rev. No. 293 of 1979
Decided On: 10.09.1979
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Indra Bhanu Singh and Karuna Sagar Singh
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. Madan Mohan Prasad Singh
The court clarified that the requirement of prior sanction under Section 84A of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, is not solely dependent on the allegations in the complaint petition and may arise at any stage of the proceeding based on the evidence presented.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - Quashing of Criminal Proceeding - Section 84A of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Cognizance of Offences - Previous Sanction - Mukhiya and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat - Removal of Encroachment - Use of Force - Official Duty.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Mukhiya and Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat, filed a criminal revision application to quash a criminal proceeding against them for allegedly assaulting the complainant and his witnesses while attempting to remove an encroachment from a public path. The petitioners claimed that they were acting in their official capacity and that prior sanction was required under Section 84A of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the allegations against the petitioners, including forming an unlawful assembly and causing hurt, could not be considered as acts done or purporting to be done in the discharge of their official duties as Mukhiya and Sarpanch. The court also noted that the scope of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the allegations in the complaint and does not extend to considering the merits or demerits of the case or the defense of the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners, as Mukhiya and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, were acting in their official capacity when they allegedly assaulted the complainant and his witnesses while attempting to remove an encroachment from a public path. 2. Whether prior sanction under Section 84A of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, was required before taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the allegations against the petitioners, including forming an unlawful assembly and causing hurt, could not be considered as acts done or purporting to be done in the discharge of their official duties as Mukhiya and Sarpanch. The court relied on the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which define the duties and powers of the Mukhiya and Sarpanch and found that these provisions did not authorize the use of force or the formation of an unlawful assembly. 2. The court also held that the question of prior sanction under Section 84A of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, could not be determined solely based on the allegations in the complaint petition. The court noted that the necessity for sanction may arise at any stage of the proceeding and that it would be open to the accused petitioners to raise the question of sanction even at the subsequent stage of the trial if the evidence revealed the necessity thereof.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' application, holding that there was no merit in their contention that prior sanction was required before taking cognizance of the offences against them. The court also observed that the petitioners could raise the question of sanction at a subsequent stage of the trial if the evidence revealed the necessity thereof.
Manoranjan Prasad, J.
1. This criminal revision application has been filed by the petitioners, Sadan Singh and Shivanandan Singh, for quashing the criminal proceeding pending against them in Complaint Case No. 415/C of 1978, in the court of Shree Ramsagar Prasad Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Barh, in which cognizance against the petitioners and others was taken by the Magistrate on the 12th February, 1979, under Sections 323, 324, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, on a complaint petition dated the 8th December, 1978, filed by the complainant, Ramsagar Singh, who is the opposite party in the present application. It appears that on the 8th December, 1978, the complainant, Ramsagar Singh, had filed a complaint petition against the petitioners and four others, namely Remnandan Singh, Bhushan Singh, Ramratan Singh and Jageshwar Singh in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh. The case of the complainant in his said complaint petition dated the 8th December, 1978, was that on the 8th November, 1978, at about 4.30 P.M. the accused persons came near his Dalan, variously armed, and started uprooting and damaging his bamboo enclosures, situate towards west of his Dalan, and, on his protest, accused Sadan Singh ORDER :ed to assault him, whereupon accused Ramnandan Singh gave a Farsa blow, causing injuries on his left hand and on palm and the rest of the accused assaulted him with Lathi, fists and slaps, and they also assaulted the witnesses, Harbansh Singh, Karu Singh, Rambalak Singh and Banke Singh, with Farsa and Lathi. On halla, the other witnesses and the villagers assembled at the place of the occurrence and they tried to prevent the accused persons from indulging in such high-handedness, but the accused persons became ready to assault them also. Thereupon the people, who had assembled there, started pelting stones on the accused persons and it was then that the accused persons fled away. The act of the accused persons in breaking the aforesaid enclosure caused a loss of Rs. 75/- to the complainant. After the occurrence, the injured complainant and the above named injured witnesses went to Jalalpur Hospital, where their injuries were examined. The cause of the occurrence, as mentioned in the complaint petition, was that previously the Mukhiya and the Sarpanch, i.e. Sadan Singh (petitioner no. 1), and Shivanandan Singh (petitioner no. 2), respectively, in collusion with the other accused persons, had given a notice to the complainant to remove the enclosure which the complainant did not remove, and this had annoyed them. It was further mentioned in the complaint petition that after the occurrence the complainant had gone to the Hathidah Police Station to report about the occurrence, finding the Mukhiya and the Sarpanch sitting there, he had returned back and thereafter, because of the injuries received by him, he had become ill, but, in the meantime, the accused persons had instituted a false case against him, by bringing in collusion the Sun Inspector of Police of Panchmahala Police Out post, in which he surrendered and thereafter he was released on bail. This was mentioned in the complaint petition on the 8th December, 1978, after a delay of about one month, in respect of an occurrence, which was alleged to have taken place on the 8th November, 1978.
2. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint petition dated the 8th December, 1978, the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh, perused the complaint petition and thereafter, by his ORDER :dated the 8th December, 1978, he made over the case under Section 192(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code,) to Shree Ramsagar Prasad Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Barh, for disposal according to law.
3. Thereafter, Shree Ramsagar Prasad Singh, Judicial Magistrate, examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and fixed 3rd February, 1979, for examination of the other witnesses of the complainant in an inquiry under Sect
