The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of necessary sanction under Section 195 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting certain offenses under IPC, and the interpretation of the elements of the offense under Section 308 IPC.

1. The present petition assails the order dated 3rd November, 2010 framing charges for offences under Sections 186/353/332/308/34 IPC against the Petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that even taking the allegations on the face of it, no offence under Section 308 IPC is made out. The injuries are abrasions caused by blunt weapon which are not possible by an iron rod, as alleged. The injuries could have been caused by fall. Even taking the allegations on their face, giving a brick blow would not make out an offence under Section 308 IPC. As regards, Sections 186/353/332, the events are so intermixed that Sections 186/353 cannot be separated. The separation of two cannot be done by camouflage to bypass provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C. Section 195 Cr.P.C. mandates filing of a complaint and the cognizance thereon. The filing of the charge-sheet and the cognizance thereon is bad in law and the trial stands vitiated. Thus, according to the Petitioner even taking the allegations on the face of it, at best an offence under Section 332 IPC is made out. Further, since the same is a non-cognizable offence, no FIR could have been registered and cognizance taken on a charge sheet filed thereon by the learned Trial Court. The contention of the Petitioner is fortified by the fact that the first D.D. entry i.e. DD No. 21A also talks about a fight between the Complainant and the driver of the TSR and not the Petitioner. Reliance is placed on Durgacharan Naik and Ors. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1995 and C. Muniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (9) SCC 567.

3. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, contends that in the present case the complaint was filed by the Head Constable Brij Mohan Sharma. The case falls within the ambit of explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. There are two injuries on the head of the Complainant, one on the parietal and the other on the temporal region. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no intention and an offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out. Reliance is placed on Rajesh Sharma @ Raju, 2011 JCC 266 to contend that even in the absence of injury, the Court has to see the intention to find out whether the offence under Section 308 IPC is made out or not. The prosecution under Section 332/353 IPC is not barred in the absence of a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. As a matter of fact, the charge-sheet itself states that along with the chargesheet permission under Section 195 Cr.P.C. has been filed in the sealed cover. Reliance is placed on C. Muniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (9) SCC 567.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The abovementioned FIR was registered on the complaint of Head Constable Brij Mohan Sharma who alleged that on 5th May, 2009 at around 10:00 a.m. while he along with Constable Inder Raj on motor cycle were challaning the traffic violators at Raj Nagar Petrol Pump near Trauma Centre they challaned one Kulvinder Singh s/o Chandan Singh for driving his two wheeler scooter in the wrong carriage way. When the Complainant and Inder Raj asked him to stop and asked for his licence, he tried to run away. They chased him and stopped him at Taj Apartments in front of ring road and took into possession the key of his scooter. The scooter rider called his friend on mobile. Thereafter three boys reached the spot and started quarrelling with them. The scooter rider picked-up a stone and hit the Complainant on his head and gave fist and kicks blows. The other picked up rod from the petrol pump and started beating the Complainant. The fourth accused beat Inder Raj by blows. On the Complainant and Inder Raj making hue and cry the said boys ran away. The Complainant caught hold of the scooter driver and in the process some of his photos, I Card and a driving license came in his hand. The boy who was driving the scooter was being addressed as Sunil by the co-accused. The scooter bearing No. DL 3S AG 4584 was taken away from the spot. Permission under