The judgment establishes the principle that acts committed by public servants in discharge of their official duties are protected under Section 197, Cr.P.C and require prior sanction for prosecution.

ORDER :- The petitioner in this application has prayed for setting aside the order dated 25-10-2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in the complaint case (CP No. 1341 of 2002), whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of want of sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C as well as on the ground that there was no prima facie case made out for any of the offences.

2. The petitioner herein is an employee of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited while opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are Inspectors of Police, CBI, Dhanbad.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, is that a case vide CBI, Dhanbad, RC case No. 3 (A) of 2002D was registered for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the basis of the complaint made by one Bajrangi Bhuiyan, an employee of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited. The petitioner was cited as an accused in this case. The complainant had alleged that certain allegations were made in the complaint by Bajrangi Bhuiyan accusing the present petitioner who being a Clerk in the colliery under the Bharat Coking Coal Limited, had demanded a bribe of rupees one thousand to extend an extra official work to him for processing his papers to enable him to get his leave regularized to join his duties. The opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 are Inspectors of Police, CBI, Dhanbad.

4. The petitioner filed a complaint petition vide CP No. 1341 of 2002 before the CJM alleging therein that by notice under Section 160, Cr.P.C. the accused opposite party No. 1 served a notice to the petitioner calling him to the office of the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Dhanbad for recording his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C in the aforesaid RC case No. 3A/of 2002 D. In response to the notice, the petitioner appeared before the officials of the CBI on 8-10-2002 in the morning at 10.00 a.m. He was detained at the office till 6.00 p.m. and throughout the day he answered several questions put to him by the opposite parties. The petitioner has alleged that opposite parties 2 to 4 had tried to compel him to admit his guilt in the aforesaid case, but on his refusal to yield, the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 started harassing him not only by detaining him at their office without offering him a cup of tea or even a glass of water and by issuing threats that they would implicate him in false cases. On the next day, he filed an information before the CJM Dhanbad under Section 39 of the Code of Criminal procedure, followed by another informatory petition on 10-10-2002, and in both the petitions, he narrated the purported ordeal he had faced at the hands of the accused persons in course of his detention at the police station from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. The complainant further alleged that in his absence from his house in the afternoon of 16-10-2002, the opposite parties 2 to 4 along with some unknown persons came to his house and despite protest of the petitioner's son and uncle, the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 entered into his House and served a notice under Section 160, Cr.P.C. upon members of the house With direction that they should ask the petitioner to report at the office of the CBI on 21-10-2002. However, before leaving, they snatched the copy of the notice from the hands of the petitioner's son and while leaving, they issued threats of dire consequences if the complainant failed to turn up at the office on the date as directed.

The complainant has alleged that on account of the conduct of the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4, he has suffered mental agony and hurt. Claiming that the act and the conduct of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 constituted offences punishable under Sections 330, 448, 506, 331/511 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner in his complaint prayed to the Court for taking cognizance of the offences and for issuance of summons to the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 directing them to face trial.

5. The complaint was transferred to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document