JUDGMENT :

Birendra Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is for quashment of order dated 13.03.2014 passed in Mohaniya P.S. Case No. 61 of 2010 whereby the learned court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Sections 386, 384 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The background of the case is that investigation of Narcotics Control Bureau Crime No. 111/INV/SEIZ/09/08 was going on. During investigation of the case, co-accused Bhim Singh made statement of disclosure before the Narcotics Authorities under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short "NDPS Act). In that statement, besides other admissions, Bhim Singh disclosed that he is in business of the narcotics and through Ayodhya Chouhan and Raghuveer Pandey, he used to send the narcotics to Bangladesh. Thereafter, the authorities raided the house of Ayodhya Chouhan. Ayodhya Chouhan was not present at the time of raid, rather his wife Sushila Chauhan was there. Statement of Sushila Chauhan was also recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act on 18.07.2009. In her statement Sushila Chauhan disclosed that her husband prepares heroin in the backside of the bathroom of the house. Besides others, Pappu, Son of Purnmasi of village Ratwar, Bhabua used to visit her house to purchase heroin. Thereafter, the petitioner being Officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau send notice to Pappu, Son of Purnmasi (complainant of this case) under Section 67 of the NDPS Act on 24.11.2009. On non-response by Pappu, another notice was sent on 18.12.2009 vide Annexure 5 and 6 respectively. This notice was also not responded by Shyamlal Gupta @ Pappu, rather the present complaint case was filed by Shyamlal Gupta @ Pappu on 16.02.2010 against the petitioner.

4. Allegation in the complaint based FIR is that the complainant is proprietor of Rice Mill at Mohaniya. Both the accused persons i.e. the petitioner and co-accused Jitendra Kumar Tiwary visited the business premise of the complainant and they disclosed their identify as Officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau. They further stated that they have power to seize any vehicle and put seal on any business premise under the Narcotics Act. Co-accused Jitendra Kumar Tiwary took the complainant at lonely place and demanded Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) immediately and asked for further payment of Rs.1,50,000/- (one lac fifty thousand) in near future. The complainant managed Rs.30,000/- (thirty thousand) available with him and he paid to co-accused Jitendra Kumar Tiwary and in turn co-accused, Jitendra paid the said amount to the petitioner. According to complaint petition, these acts were committed on 02.11.2009. Further disclosure is that in the meantime, the petitioner sent registered notices already referred as Annexure-5 and 6 and even called on mobile of the complainant for payment of the remaining amount. Thus, the allegation is of commission of extortion.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a public servant posted in the Narcotics Control Bureau and was competent to call for information from the complainant in view of the powers under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and for his official duties, the petitioner is immune from criminal prosecution under Section 69 of the NDPS Act which reads as follows: "no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or a State Government or any officer of the Central Government or of the State Government or any other person exercising any powers or discharging any functions or performing any duties under this Act, for anything in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder".

6. Submission is that the petitioner apparently acted in good faith by sending notices to the complainant under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to furnish certain information in the light of disclosure made by Sushila