Heard Sri Rajendra Singh, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Ram Sumiran Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Zainul Abadin, learned A.PP. as well as Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/ opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioner, who is widow of the deceased son of the opposite party no. 2 has approached this Court invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 11.12.2012 passed by Smt. Rumpa Kumari, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1851(C) of 2012. By the said order the learned Magistrate at the stage of enquiry after examination of complainant on oath and witnesses directed for issuance of letter to Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna for getting the entire matter thoroughly enquired by a local police officer after conducting local enquiry. She had further directed for obtaining prosecution sanction in respect of one of the persons, who was arrayed as accused in the complaint petition namely Sri Rahul Anand. Since the order impugned has been assailed purely on the ground that same was contrary to the statutory provision the Court proposes not to elaborately discuss the facts of complaint. Fact remains that the complainant had alleged that she was assaulted by her father-in- law, who is opposite party no. 2 and other in-law’s family members. It is a fact that the husband of the complainant had committed suicide earlier. The complaint petition was registered as Complaint Case No. 1851(C) of 2012. After filing of the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 192 of the Cr.P.C. transferred the same to the concerned learned Magistrate namely Smt. Rumpa Kumari, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna. Thereafter, the transferee the Magistrate started enquiry under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. She examined complainant on oath and also three witnesses were produced by the complainant. They were examined and discharged and thereafter a petition was filed by the complainant that complainant was not intending to examine further witnesses. Even though processes were not issued to the opposite party no. 2, he entered appearance and filed number of petitions. The complainant also replied to one of the petitions filed by the opposite party no. 2. While entertaining the accused before issuance of process the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order. The learned Magistrate has considered the reply filed by the petitioner to a petition filed by the accused /opposite party no. 2 and thereafter, the learned Magistrate had noticed two accused namely Smt. Kavita Anand and Sri Rahul Anand as per photo copy of PASS-PORT and VIZA were resident of Washington D.C. (U.S.A.) and accused Sri Rahul Anand was working in the International Monetary Fund Washington D.C. (I.A.S.). Subsequently, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order for getting investigation conducted by an independent Police Officer and also for obtaining prosecution sanction in respect of one of the accused persons.

3. Sri Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on number of grounds. It was firstly argued that once the learned Magistrate had proceeded with a proceeding under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. and examined the complainant on oath and witnesses, the learned Magistrate was not authorized to direct for investigation. He further submits that it is settled that before issuance of process in a complaint proceeding the learned Magistrate was not at all authorized to entertain an accused or any petition filed by the accused. It has thirdly been argued that the accusation alleged in the complaint petition was not having any relation with discharge of official duty in respect of one of the accused regarding whom direction was issued for obtaining prosecution