The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the protection of public servants with the rights of citizens, as well as the requirement for a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty, as highlighted in Section 197 of the Code.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Md. Asadul Haque, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.05.2017 including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 338/2011, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur.

3. The complaint case No. 338/2011 has been instituted on the basis of the protest petition dated 20.10.2011 by opposite party no. 2 in Hiranpur P.S. Case No. 05/2011 dated 30.01.2011 after submission of final form by the Investigating Officer in which the petitioner has not been sent up for trial, alleging therein that the complainant/informant happens to be an elected member of Panchayat Samiti, Hathkathi, had gone to Block Office, Hiranpur for participating Panchayat Pramukh Election and she wants to cast her vote in favour of Basanthi Kisku, but the accused-petitioner cunningly by giving threat induce her to cast her vote in favour of Basanti Murmu and when immediately after foul play of the accused persons, she raised protest against it then all accused persons assaulted her and abusing her by filthy languages. When her husband and sister-in-law came to save her, accused persons also assaulted them which caused physical injury on their part, accused person also abusing them by calling chamar.

4. Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of occurrence the petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer. The petitioner had earlier filed a case against the husband of the complainant/informant and others being Hiranpur P.S. Case No. 04 of 2011 in which charge-sheet was submitted against them. He further submits that the informant/complainant, who happens to be elected member of Panchayat Samiti, has instituted FIR being Hiranpur P.S. Case No. 05 of 2011 against the petitioner and others making allegation that she was abused and assaulted at the behest of this petitioner. He also submits that in that said FIR, final form has been submitted whereby the petitioner has not been sent up for trial and on the protest petition, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner vide order dated 25.05.2017, which is impugned in the present petition. He further submits that this is a counter blast case, which has been filed maliciously against the petitioner, who is discharging his official duty.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Md. Asadul Haque, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 submits that the police has not investigated the case in right perspective and only to escape out the petitioner, final form has been submitted and that is why protest petition has been filed by the complainant/informant, wherein enquiry witnesses have supported the case of opposite party no. 2. He further submits that there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance.

6. Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the State submits that admittedly later on the FIR was lodged on 30.01.2011 by opposite party no. 2 against this petitioner, whereas, the petitioner has already filed the FIR on 29.01.2011. He further submits that in the second FIR, there was allegation of SC/ST Act also, in which, final form has been submitted. He further submits that on the protest petition of the complainant/informant, learned court has taken cognizance, however the learned court has not taken cognizance under the SC/ST Act.

7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that the petitioner while discharging his official duty, has lodged the FIR on 29.01.2011 with regard to disturbance created by certain people in Panchayat election and after two days, FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2, which was investigated by the police and final form has been submitted whereby the petitioner has not