Sandeep Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. vide Shikarpur P.S. Case No.692 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The informant (opposite party no.2) is the Revenue Officer and the petitioner is the Circle Officer of Narkatiyaganj, District- West Champaran. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that while some discussions were made in the office of the Circle Officer regarding some official work, suddenly the Circle Officer became aggressive and started abusing the informant with filthy language and thereafter ordered the Anchal Guard to oust the informant from the office. In the meantime, the wife of the Circle Officer came and interfered in the matter and made her to sit in another room but the Circle Officer did not stop. He again came to the room where the informant was sitting and started assaulting her with fist and slaps.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the F.I.R., it appears that the F.I.R. has been instituted sixteen days after the occurrence without any plausible explanation and the delay in instituting the F.I.R. itself makes the allegations vulnerable. He further submits that from perusal of the allegation, it also appears that the same does not allege the time of the occurrence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was going on leave from 16.08.2023 to 19.08.2023, for which an application was being typed in his office that in his absence, the charge would be handed over to the B.D.O., Narkatiaganj, which was objected by the informant on the ground that the charges should not be handed over to the B.D.O. when she would remain present and is an officer next to the petitioner in the Sub-Division, on account of which, an altercation took place, but for reasons best known to the informant, the present F.I.R. came to be instituted with an exaggerated allegation.

6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are completely improbable and unbelievable. A typed copy of the F.I.R. was given on 30.08.2023 at 08:30 P.M. alleging therein that the incident took place on 14.08.2023 in the office without indicating the time of incident. From bare reading of the F.I.R. between the lines, it is apparent that the F.I.R. was drafted so as to meet the necessary ingredients of the alleged offence. In support of this submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mahmood Ali and Others vs. State of U.P and Ors. reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 959.

7. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is a man of means and has an unblemished service career without any complaint from any corner and the present case is nothing but has been lodged with a view to wreaking vengeance. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported as 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a letter dated 09.06.2008 issued by the then Principal Secretary, Home Department, Bihar and has submitted that the in the said letter, it has been stated that before instituting an F.I.R./complaint against a Government servant, it is required to check whether mens rea is inherent in the conduct of the official or not. In this case, mens rea is completely lacking as it is apparent from bare perusal of the F.I.R. that on 14.08.2023 the petitioner was working in his office and during the course of conversation he became angry and started abusing the informant. In the later part of the F.I.R. the false and frivolous allegation of assaulting the informant was made only with a view