Prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is mandatory to prosecute public servants for actions within their official duties, protecting them from vexatious allegations.

JUDGMENT : CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 06.04.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 2531 (C) of 2008, where learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, rejected the application seeking discharge under Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, Cr.P.C.), where cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution story In short, as per the allegations against this petitioner in the complaint case, the complainant has alleged that inter alia, that the accused persons came to her residence when her husband was not available, and this petitioner called the complainant from her house and upon reluctance to the complainant, the accused persons forcefully entered into the house and this petitioner caught hold of the hands and dashed the complainant against the wall causing her injury. It is also alleged against this petitioner-accused that on his orders, other accused persons bodily lifted the complainant and in doing so, this petitioner snatched a gold chain from the neck of the complainant, and handed over the same to the accused no 2. It is also alleged that when her mother-in-law protested, she was also thrown on the ground by the accused persons, and she also sustained injuries. It is also alleged that the complainant was taken to the police station and confined to 'Hajat' and subjected to cruelty. Ultimately, the complainant had alleged commission of offences under Sections 147, 342, 341, 323, 354, 506, 504, 379, 337, 338, 448 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a public servant posted as the Station House Officer (SHO) of Kankarbagh Police Station during the period in question. He had no prior enmity or any personal differences with the complainant or the other accused and was merely discharging his official duties.

5. It is further submitted that a complaint was filed by the complainant in the year 2008, allegedly driven by malafide intention just to create pressure and harass the petitioner. It is submitted that the complaint was kept pending for years, and only after a superficial enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, took cognizance on 19.07.2012 against the petitioner.

6. Mr. Singh further submitted that no prosecution sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was obtained either at the stage of cognizance or subsequently, despite the allegations being directly related to the discharge of his official duties. This omission makes the cognizance itself legally unsustainable.

7. At this stage it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. for the better understanding of the case:-

"197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.-(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction-

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case m