The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection provided to Railway Protection Force personnel under Section 20 of the Railway Protection Force Act and the requirement of sanction for prosecution to protect public servants from harassment in the discharge of their official duties.

JUDGMENT :

1. Though O.P. No. 2 has put his appearance by filing vakalatnama and name of the learned advocate on behalf of O.P. No. 2 is appearing but today on repeated calls nobody appeared on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 accordingly, this matter is being heard on merit.

2. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 08.02.2016 in connection with Jugsalai (Bagbera) P.S. Case No. 282 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 2965 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur or its successor court.

4. Informant has lodged F.I.R. alleging therein that on 08.09.2015 at about 16.30 hours when he was going to his residence after attending his duties and reached in front of the RPF Gate, then RPF Hawaldar, Madhusudan Pandey dashed him by cycle. When the informant told the accused-Madhusudan Pandey that how he was riding the cycle and he should see before riding. On this, the informant was taken to R.P.F. office and assaulted by the petitioners along with other police personnel, as a result of which the informant sustained serious injuries below his eyes and chest. It is further alleged that when the informant told that he is Rail Police Inspector, Tata Nagar then these RPF personnel told that he is looking like Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. However, when the GRP Police personnel heard about the matter, they saved the informant from further assault.

5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset fairly submits that petitioner no. 1 was posted as Hawaldar whereas the petitioner no. 2 was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector of the RPF post at Tata Nagar Railway Station. He further submits that altercation took place between R.P.F. personnel and G.R.P., Tata Railway Station. He further submits that there are case and counter case between the parties. He further submits that even the police officials are protected under section 197 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that in the light of section 20 of the Railway Protection Force Act, restriction and protection have been provided. He further submits that section 20 of the Railway Protection Force Act has been considered by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of “Naresh Mohan Prasad and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another” reported in 2000 Criminal Law Journal 424 and in the case of “D.S. Ghuria and Another Vs. N. Singh” reported in 1970 Criminal Law Journal 642 . On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed.

6. Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the cognizance order.

7. The Court has perused the materials on record and finds that F.I.R. was lodged under several sections of I.P.C. including under Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but the learned court below has not taken cognizance under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Prima facie it suggests that the allegation made in F.I.R. is concocted with regard to ingredient of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Section 20 of the Railway Protection Force Act provides as under:-

“20. Protection of acts of members of the Force:-

(1)xxxxxxxxxxxx

(2) xxxxxxxxxxxx

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any legal proceeding, whether civil or criminal which may lawfully be brought against any member of the Force for anything done or intended to be done under the powers conferred by, or in pursuance of, any provision of this Act or the rules thereunder shall be commenced within three months after the act complained of shall have been committed and not otherwise: and notice in writing of such proceeding and of the cause thereof shall b