The main legal point established is that a public servant discharging official duty is protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C., and the complaint stage inquiry is limited to prima facie satisfaction of sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Robin Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No.1738 of 2016 including the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby cognizance has been taken under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, which is pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The complainant filed the complaint alleging therein that on 06.06.2015, meeting of Establishment Committee of Deputy Commissioner was held wherein the complainant who was posted at Namkum block was transferred to Jan Shikayat Koshang as Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. On 22.07.2015, the complainant intimated the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 22.07.2015 about the difficulty in handling two offices simultaneously as the complainant was posted at G/12 and also Room no.212 on Collectorate building, the Deputy Commissioner did not take any action. Vide letter dated 25.07.2015, Sweta Gupta requested the Deputy Commissioner to transfer the complainant to outskirt as the complainant is habitual absentee from office. The Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 03.08.2015 suspended the complainant and posted him at Headquarter Lapung Anchal without issuing any show cause notice. It was further stated that although Sweta Gupta alleged the complainant to be habitual absentee from work, but the biometric system of attendance reflect that the complainant was regular employee. Vide letter dated 01.09.2015, the complainant was released from suspension and was posted at Bundu Block office. The complainant filed show cause reply to the Additional Collector. It was also alleged that when the conducting officer demanded evidence against the complainant, Sweta Gupta did not give reply and till date no evidence has been produced. It was further alleged that the complainant has been harassed and tortured by the accused person which has resulted in mental agony and tension.

4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that Criminal Revision No.495 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi against the order dated 18.02.2019 which stood dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2019 as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. He further submits that entire allegation against the petitioner is false. He also submits that the petitioner, who happened to be a Government official, has intimated the higher official about regular absenteeism from office by opposite party no.2 and pursuant to that he has been transferred and for transfer, this case has been lodged against the petitioner, who happened to be Deputy Collector at that time. He further submits that in the official capacity, the petitioner has informed the Deputy Commissioner about the conduct of the opposite party no.2. He also submits no case under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207.

5. Paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:

“21. Section 504 IPC came up for consideration before this Court in Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra. In the said case, this Court had the occasion to examine ingredients of Section 504 IPC, which need to be present before proceeding to try a case. The Court held that in the said case, the order issuing process was challenged by filing a criminal revision. This Court held that at the complaint stage, the Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint and has only to prima facie satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the