IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 454 of 2019
Decided On : 16-03-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 197 read with Section 156(3) – Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Prosecution of public servant – Direction for Police investigation – No F.I.R. has been lodged as no previous sanction was produced by complainant – In such circumstance, if complaint is pressed by complainant-petitioner and Magistrate decides to take up private complaint, while doing so, he can definitely look into statements made in complaint petition and find out at first instance as to given nature of allegations made against public servants – C.J.M. is well within his jurisdiction to see whether case may proceed without a previous sanction – There must be a reasonable connection between act and discharge of official duty – Act must bear such relation to duty that accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in course of performance of his duty – In present case, complaint petition itself discloses that statements made by Chief Minister being In-charge Minister were on Floor of House and in this regard he was provided with information by other public servants who were discharging their own duty – Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly looked into this aspect of matter – Question of sanction may arise at any stage of proceeding – Whether sanction is necessary or not is to be determined in each case and necessity may reveal itself in course of progress of case – Impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity – Writ Application dismissed. (Paras 27 to 30, 32 and 33)
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. - This writ application has been preferred invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:
"i. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 3165(C)/2015 by which he has by a common order rejected the applications dated 5.1.2018, 10.4.2018, 4.5.2018, 15.5.2018, 10.7.2018, 25.7.2018 & 8.8.2018 filed by the petitioner; and/or
ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting the application dated 14.12.2017 filed by the SHO, Sachivalaya P.S. (Respondent No.4) in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna by which he has erroneously returned the Complaint Case No. 3165(C)/2015 under Section 157-1(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and/or
iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna to decide the applications dated 29.10.2018 & 29.11.2018 filed by the petitioner in accordance with law; and/or
iv. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing a fair investigation pursuant to the registration of First Information Report as directed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna vide its order dated 31.10.2015 whereby the learned Magistrate owing to the facts, circumstances and nature of the offence alleged in the complaint Case No. 3163(C)/2015 transferred the said complaint for investigation to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure; and/or
v. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction to the Officer-in-Charge/Station House Officer of the Sachivalaya Police Station, Patna for registration of first information report under Sections 166, 167, 420, 467, 468, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in compliance of the order dated 31.10.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 3165(C)/2015; and/or
vi. For issuance of an appropriate order/direction to the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to punish the erring officers for deliberate violation of a judicial order; and/or
vii. Any other relief to which this Hon'ble Court deems the petitioner entitled to."
Brief facts of the case
2. The petitioner, who is the complainant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna has alleged that in the 47th Combined (P.T.) Examinations held in the year 2004 in which he had appeared along with thousands of other candidates, the result was published in utter violation of the provisions as contained in Section 4 of the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in the Post and Services (For Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1991 as Amended by an Act of 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1991').
3. It is his grievance that the cut off marks of both the Category-5 i.e. other backward castes and the general candidates were identical i.e. 99, according to him, not even a single candidate of backward caste i.e. Category-5 was shortlisted from their own category. The complainant claims that by not shortlisting any candidate from Category 5 the Penal provisions of the Act of 1991 were attracted. According to him, with regard to the issue of denial of reservation to the backward castes a starred question was raised in the Legislative Assembly of the State to which a reply was given by the Hon'ble Chief Minister as Incharge Minister of Department of Personnel, Government of Bihar on the advice and report of the then Secretary, Department of Personnel.
4. The Complainant alleges that by giving a misleading reply to the Members of the Legislative Assembly as well as the citizens of the State asserting that
Amrik Singh vs. State of PEPSU
Anil Kumar & Ors. vs. M.K. Aiyappa
Bakhshish Singh Brar vs. Gurmej Kaur
K. Satwant Singh vs. State of Punjab
K.K. Patel vs. State of Gujarat
Om Prakash vs. State of Jharkhand
P. Arulswami vs. State of Madras
Pukhraj vs. State of Rajasthan
Pukhraj vs. State of Rajasthan
Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh vs. Jammal Patel
Sankaran Moitra vs. Sadhna Das
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act mandatory before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or registering FIR against public servant for official duty acts; absenc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a reasonable nexus between the alleged act and the discharge of official duty, and the limitations of the protection under Section 197....
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act mandatory before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or registering FIR against public servant for offences in discharge of o....
The protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not available to public servants who commit offenses that are not connected with the discharge of their official duties or who act in excess of their autho....
Sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory for prosecuting public servants for actions taken while performing official duties, preventing misuse of legal proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.