2 in this Appeal .
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna had transferred the case on 18.1.1997 to the learned Magistrate for enquiry and disposal and that is how the matter was placed before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
103 of 1997 was registered in respect of companymission of offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC.
Elder son of Respondent number 2 told the police officials that Ratnesh had gone to Delhi and was number present.
Though search was companyducted numbermaterial of any substance was seized.
A requisition slip for the purpose was given.
Primary stand taken by the appellant before the High Court was that in the absence of sanction as companytemplated under Section 197 of the Code, the proceeding cannot be companytinued.
On 11.7.1996 the team companystituted for the purpose of search requested the police officials of Shastri Nagar Police Station in Patna for companyperation.
Supervision of the case was being done by the appellant.
The High Court by the impugned judgment rejected the prayer holding that since the requirement of Section 100 4 of the Code were number followed, while search was companyducted in the respondent No.2s premises the provisions of Section 197 of the Code were number applicable.
On the basis of such information the appellant gave spot instruction to arrest the suspects and companyduct search.
The Special Report in respect of the case was 250 of 1996.
Search was to be companyducted in the house of respondent number2.
Alleging that the search was motivated and was for the purpose of humiliating and harassing, as the companycerned officials did number have a search warrant, the respondent number2 and his son Chhotu, companyplaint was filed on 26.11.1996 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna.
Three Sub Inspectors were deputed for the purpose and the investigating officer of the case was directed to companytinue investigation on other lines.
The team of three sub inspectors and local police officials visited the house of respondent number2 on 11.7.19992 for the purpose of search and to arrest Ratnesh, if necessary.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Source information was received about the involvement of certain persons, one of whom was Ratnesh Kumar Dubey alias Chhotu, son of respondent No.2.
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single judge of the Patna High Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code seeking quashing of the order of companynizance taken by learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna, on a companyplaint filed by Ramesh Kumar Dubey Respondent No.
By order dated 11.1.2000 learned Judicial Magistrate took companynizance of offences punishable under Sections 342, 389, 469, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
