The central legal point established is that acts done in discharge of official duty are entitled to protection under Section 197 and 132 of Cr.P.C., and the need for sanction to protect public servants from unnecessary harassment or prosecution.

1. Heard.

2. This is a petition for quashing the order dated 03.05.2012 by which complaint case has been dismissed on the ground that allegation made against them are absurd and improbable. The act alleged to have been done in discharge of official duty by the Senior Officers and hence prosecution against them is subject to sanction by appropriate authority as are protected under Section 197 and 132 of Cr.P.C.

3. The prosecution case as alleged in the First Information Report by the complainant-petitioner that there was Dharna for supply of electricity and people were demonstrating against G.M. of Electricity, B. Mukherjee. At the place of Dharna there were District Magistrate, G.M., S.P., Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Officer as well as Senior Police Officer of the rank of Dy. S.P. were present to control the law and order. It is further alleged that there was indiscriminate firing on the order of D.M., S.P., and of G.M. of Electricity. Then it is alleged that police resorted to lathi charge upon the public. It is further alleged that police officer like S.P. and other officers also indulge in firing causing injury to one Subul. It is further alleged that due to firing the complainant received injury on his right thumb. It is further alleged that Bipin Kumar, S.P. Jitendra Singh Gangwar, Satya Narayan Srivastava, S.D.O., Ajay Mishra, O/C Kahalgaon and V. N. Jha, Dy. S.P. came to the complainant asked whether he wants to be Hero and when the petitioner disclosed his name as Basudeo Paswan then they abused him by calling his caste name, “Dusadh has become Neta” and they assaulted by slap and fist. It is further alleged that by firing of the police personnel some persons were injured and some died so complaint petition has been fled by making the accused as District Magistrate, S.P., Magistrate, Officer-in-Charge, Dy. S.P. and S.D.O. and General Manager of N.T.P.C.

4. On the complaint the enquiry proceeded under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., the complainant and witnesses were examined on oath. Learned trial court considers the material collected during enquiry under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. as well as the case diary of Khalgaon P.S. Case No. 13 of 2008 produced by prosecution. The learned Magistrate taking into consideration the fact and circumstance as exaggerated from the enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. by their examination and cross-examination of the witnesses that there was demonstration by 7000 to 8000 thousand people for supply of electricity. The demonstrators jammed the rail road. There was slogan shouting. There was stampede. The D.M., S.P., S.D.O., S.D.P.O., Officer-in-Charge and Magistrate all were pacifying the people to maintain peace. The activists were violating the prohibitory order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. The activists become violent resorting to violence and aggressive and attack police force by brick batting and pelting stone. This lead to lathi charge, use of tear gas but situation become uncontrollable and they set on fire in police jeep and attack the police force and administration seeing the situation beyond control the Magistrate and police resorted to firing. Taking into consideration the situation the Magistrate found that there is prima facie material to the act of the accused persons comes under the purview of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. as the act alleged appears to have been done in the discharge of official duty as well as comes under Section 132 of Cr.P.C. and further hold that the allegation made by the complainant that he was apprehended and asked by D.M., and S.P. about his name and when he disclosed his name as Basudeo Paswan, then the D.M., S.P., S.D.O. and S.D.P.O. abuse him by calling his caste name is not only manifestly absurd but is inherently improbable and hence dismissed the complaint holding that there is no ground for proceeding on the complaint and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however contends