JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. The petitioner in this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. assails the order dated 29.10.2002 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur in I.C.C.Case No. 153 of 2002 taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 504/323, IPC against him and order dated 30.4.2004 rejecting the petition of the petitioner to reconsider the order of cognizance.

2. Opposite party no.2 being the complainant filed a complaint before the learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur on 26.4.2002 which was registered as I.C.C Case No. 153 of 2002. The learned Magistrate by order dated 29.10.2002 recorded the initial statement of the complainant under Section 202, Cr.P.C. along with one co-victim Harihar Singh. The petitioner (accused no.1) was working as Tahasildar, Dharmasala, whereas accused no.2 was working as R.I. in the same Tahasil. Allegation has been made against the accused no.2 that he demanded money from the complainant and his brother Harihar as a condition precedent for sanction of cyclone relief in their favour. Allegation as against accused no.1 (the present petitioner), was that he uttered abusive words at the complainant and his brother and gave assault to the complainant when the complainant had been to his office to report against accused no.2 and also to ventilate their grievances in the matter of cyclone relief. On the basis of such allegations and materials available on record, on being prima facie satisfied that a case under Section 504/323, IPC is made out, the learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and another Nilamani Biswal. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved a petition on 8.4.2003 to reconsider the matter of cognizance as against him. However, the learned Magistrate by order dated 30.4.2004 rejected the said petition on the ground that the act complained against the accused-petitioner has no nexus with the discharge of his official duty nor the same can be said to have been committed in excess of discharge of his official duty.

3. Though this CRLMC has been filed challenging the order of cognizance dated 29.10.2002 and the order dated 30.4.2004 rejecting the petition for reconsideration of the order of cognizance, learned counsel for the petitioner in course of hearing submitted a memo stating that he does not want to press the prayer so far as quashing of the order dated 30.4.2004 is concerned.

4. To substantiate his contention, Mr.P.R.Chhatoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that cognizance could not have been taken against the petitioner as no sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. has been taken before passing the impugned order and more so, the alleged act has been committed by the accused-petitioner while working as Tahasildar, Dharmasala in due discharge of his official function and therefore, the impugned order of cognizance without getting sanction cannot be sustained. In support of the said contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ramakanta Sahoo v. Suresh Prasad Panda, 2012 (II) OLR 725, (2012) 53 OCR 317. Apart from the same, it is further urged that no successive application could have been filed for the self-same cause of action. Since complaint filed earlier on 14.2.2002 had been dismissed, on the basis of the subsequent complaint petition dated 27.4.2002 in Annexure-2 no cognizance could have been taken by the learned Magistrate. It is further urged that on the date of occurrence the petitioner was not present but he has been falsely implicated. With the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for quashing of the impugned order of cognizance.

5. Repelling the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.P.Parija, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 contended that the accused-petitioner has committed the act not in due discharge of public function as a public servant and therefore, sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. is not required. Relying upon the judgment of the apex Cou