( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for quashing the proceedings instituted against the petitioner in case No. 1456-C of 1979 pending in the court of Mr. M. L. Mehta, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The matter is an off shoot of the volatile foreigners issue in Assam.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an officer of the Indian Police Service. When the petition was filed, he was the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Nowgong, Assam. However, at the relevant time he was the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Gauhati, Assam.

( 3 ) ON 31st December, 1979, Parthajoy Das, respondent No, 1 filed a complaint in the court of the Sub-Divisional Mastrate at Barpeta, Assam. The complainant pertained to the action taken in the early hours of 10th December, 1979 by the petitioner and respondents 3, 4, and 5; when respondent No. 1 and a crowd of 1500 to 2000 persons were trying to prevent Begum Abida Ahmed from filing her nomination papers as a Lok Sabha candidate.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 3, Mr. K. P. S. Gill, belonging to the Indian Police Service, was, at the relevant time, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gauhati, Kamrup, Assam, Respondent No. 4, Mr. M. C. Narasinham, belonging to the Indian Administrative Service, was at the relevant time, Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, Gauhati. Respondent No. 5, Mr. A. Malik, belonging to the Assam Civil Service, was at the relevant time, Additional District Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati.

( 5 ) ON receipt of the complaint the Magistrate examined the complainant and his witness Mr. Praveen Sharma, and took cognizance under sections 302/325/323/427/34/114/149, Indian Penal Code he directed the issue of warrants of arrest against the petitioner and respondents 3, 4, and 5. He took these steps, though admittedly, no sanction to prosecute these public servants had been obtained under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. Nor did he apply his mind to the question of sanction of the State Government under section 132, Criminal Procedure Code. He also did not wait for either the enquiry report, or the inquest report and/or the postmortem report.

( 6 ) AS the petitioner was in the United Kingdom for higher studies and training, he could not be served. However, on his return he appeared before the Magistrate at Barpeta on 20th October, 1980. He immediately challenged the taking of cognizance. In his application he stated, inter alia, that no offence had been made out in the complaint nor had any sanction been accorded by the appropriate authority. But Magistrate did not pass any order on the application.

( 7 ) ON 12th December, 1980 the petitioner along with respondents 3, 4, and 5 moved a transfer petition in the Supreme Court of India. They felt that they would be prejudiced, in view of the prevailing communal and political atmosphere in the State of Assam and the wide spread propaganda in the press and other media with regard to the "foreigners" issue. The Supreme Court called for a report from the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court. It considered the report and transferred the case to the court of a Magistrate at Delhi, by its order dated 27th July, 1981 The Supreme Court opined that it was in the interest of justice to transfer the case to the court of a Magistrate to be nominated by the Sessions Judge, Delhi

( 8 ) THREE other transfer applications, pertaining to earlier incidents of the same night-early morning, i. e. of 9th-10 December, 1977, in connection with preventing Begum Abida Ahmed from filing her nomination papers were also before the Supreme Court. These, however, were not allowed. In those cases proceedings were pending in the High Court of Gauhati, for quashing and a stay of the proceedings before the Magistrate had already been ordered. The Supreme Court ordered that the stay would be operative till the disposal of the proceedings by the High Court of Gauhati.

( 9 ) WITH regard to the present matter the parties were directed to appear bef