IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1209 of 2023 ------

Ashok Mandal, aged about 32 years, son of Kalu Mandal, resident of Village Haroraidih, P.O. & P.S. Masalia, District Dumka.

… Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Ishwar Dayal Munda, S/o Not Known, Officer-in-Charge, Masalia

3. Ram Prasad Paswan, S/o Not Known, A.S.I., Masalia

4. Manoj Karmali, S/o Not Known, Police posted at Masalia P.S.

No.2 to 4 all are resident of Village Masalia, Thana Campus, P.O.

& P.S. Masalia, District Dumka.

5. Goutam Mandal, Son of Manohar Mandal, Resident of Village Kathalia, P.O. & P.S. Masalia, District Dumka.

… Opposite Parties ------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate Ms. Kabisha Goenka, Advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.

For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Jagat Kumar Soni, Advocate ------

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal Revision No.09 of 2022 whereby and where under, the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka affirmed the order dated 30.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dumka in Complaint (PCR) Case No.276 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint.

3. The petitioner herein is the complainant of Complaint (PCR) Case No.276 of 2021 which was filed contending therein that the petitioner- complainant beat his wife with a bamboo consequent upon quarrel between them. The wife of the petitioner-complainant intimated about the occurrence to her father over phone. Her father came and along with the wife of the petitioner-complainant went to Masalia Police Station. Police summoned the complainant to the police station and made him sit under a litchi tree inside the campus of the police station and beat him. In support of his case, the complainant examined himself under solemn affirmation and also examined four other inquiry witnesses including one doctor.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dumka considered that though the complainant explained the delay of four days in filing the complaint by mentioning therein that he reported matter in writing to the S.P., D.I.G. and I.G. Dumka before filing the complaint but the complainant could not produce any document in support of such contention. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dumka, further considered that it is the admitted case of the complainant that he had a fight with his wife and he had physically assaulted his wife. Upon the report submitted by the wife of the complainant, the complainant was brought to the police station. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dumka considered that public servants have been treated as a special category in order to protect them from malicious and vexatious prosecution and the action of the proposed accused persons of the case being all police officers on duty at the Masalia Police Station; has a reasonable connection with the discharge of their official duties and as per legal mandate, sanction for prosecution as envisaged under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a sine qua non for taking cognizance against the proposed accused persons of the complaint Case but in the absence of the sanction for prosecution, did not find it proper to take cognizance of any offence and dismissed the complaint.

5. On being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dumka, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.09 of 2022 in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dumka. The learned Sessions Judge, Dumka concurred with the observations made by the learned Judicial Magistrate for dismissing the complaint and dismissed the criminal revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies