Point of Law: Provision of Section 197 CrPC will not be attracted if at time of discharging official duties a public servant entered into conspiracy or indulges in criminal misconduct, same cannot be treated as an act in discharge of official duties. It is not an official duty of a public servant to fabricate false agreement in collusion with private person.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. Mr. R. De, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.2/complainant.

2. The petitioners herein preferred the present petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the entire proceeding pertaining to C.R. Case No.78/2017 under Sections 347/ 348/ 566/ 384/ 34/120(B) IPC including the order of taking cognizance dated 03.11.2017 and the order dated 13.09.2019 whereby the court has rejected the petition filed under Section 197 CrPC.

3. The brief facts that can be recapitulated from the record is that the respondent no.2 Prafulla Bhuyan, as complainant lodged a complaint before the learned CJM, Jorhat contending, inter alia that he purchased a plot of land of 5 Lecha covered by P.P. No.36 Dag No.485 Bongali Plot under Uttar Teok Mouza from one Bhakta Ch. Bora in lieu of some consideration and possessing the same since long and the respondent no.2/complainant also received compensation from the Government at the time of widening the National Highway. Suddenly, on 29.05.2017, one police officer from Teok Police station came to his residence and asked him to visit the police station at the earliest. Accordingly, as a duty bound citizen, he went to police station and found three police officials, Amarjyoti Gogoi, Gopal Doley and Romesh Oza there. Out of nowhere, the police officials asked him to vacate the land he possessed otherwise he was threatened to face dire consequences. They also offered Rs.10,000/- for vacating the land and otherwise threatened to raise false non-bailable cases against him. Thereafter, he left for his house with one of the police constable. On the next day, on 01.06.2017, in his absence, the aforesaid police officials came to his house and unturned all the valuable articles of his house, resulting damage of various articles. They also used filthy language to his wife and threatened her of dire consequences if they do not comply with the instructions given by them. Then, again on 02.06.2017, the accused Amarjyoti and Gopal Doley came to his house and forcibly took him to the police station where he found the actual pattadar of the land, Punaram Bora who instigated police to harass respondent no.2/complainant to compel him to vacate the land, as he could not collect the entire compensation. The police personnel acted as per his instructions.

4. Thereafter, those police officials illegally confined him inside the lockup and forced him to enter into an agreement for vacating the land possessed by him. Knowing about the matter, his son Dadul Bhuyan arrived at the police station and seeing the miserable condition of his father, he drafted an agreement in vernacular as threatened by the police officials. Out of fear, the complainant signed the agreement. Thus, it is alleged that all the accused persons by hatching conspiracy has harassed the respondent no.2/complainant and forced him to sign the agreement to vacate the land in favour of Punaram Bora.

5. The learned trial court examined the complainant as well as other witnesses under Section 202 CrPC and thereafter took cognizance of the offence and summoned all the accused persons including the present respondent no.2/complainant to face the trial. Accordingly, they appeared before the court and enlarged on bail. As the case was of warrant procedure, the court examined five witnesses before charge was framed reserving their cross-examination. At this stage, the accused petitioners filed a petition under Section 197/227 CrPC, praying for discharge for non-obtaining sanction under Section 197 CrPC. It was pleaded that the entire occurrence took place inside the police station and they are discharging their official duty and hence entitled for protection under Section 197 CrPC. The learned trial court after hearing both sides, rejected the prayer vide order dated 13.09.2019 and thereafter