JUDGMENT :

On repeated call nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P.No.2. Identical was the situation on 31.08.2022. Accordingly, this matter is being heard on merit.

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

3. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ranchi Rail P.S. Case No.131 of 2011, G.R.No.217 of 2011, including order dated 20.7.2012, pending in the court of learned Railway Magistrate, Ranchi.

4. The facts of this case in brief is that on the basis of fardbeyan given by O.P.no.2 wherein he has stated that he was working as Gate Keeper in Railway Department and posted at Piska Nagri Mahohar Level Crossing Gate. On 12.10.2011 according to him his duty hours were 5 a.m. to 6 p.m. after he is being relieved from his duty, it is alleged that 4 RPF personnel in civil dress came to him on motorcycle and one jawan Rabindra Rai was accompanied them. They took him to RPF office and also threatened him that he is indulged in committing theft of railway properties. It is alleged that on refusal he had been assaulted by means of Danda and with pointed nails electric shock was also given to him and he was made to stand in hot water. It was also stated that after receiving injuries some tablets were also given to him and after his being released he was admitted to railway hospital, Hatia for treatment from where he was referred to Deo Kamal Hospital and on the basis of these allegations the present FIR was instituted.

5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 was Inspector of Railway Protection Force and petitioner nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are constables in Railway Protection Force and posted at Ranchi. He submits that all the petitioners are members of the force as defined under section 2 of the Railway Protection Force, Act, 1957 and they are protected under section 20 of the said Act. He submits that in course of performing their legal duty in the matter of theft of solar plate investigation has been done. The O.P.No.2 happened to be Gate Keeper and he was brought to the spot of occurrence for identification and on instigation of certain union leader the present case has been lodged against the petitioners. He submits that prosecution is malafidely instituted against the petitioners who happens to be member of force.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Shukla, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that learned court has taken congnizance and the status report suggest that one of the witness has been examined.

7. The Court has gone through the entire record and considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that informant was working with the Railway and he was Gate Keeper. Section 197 of the Cr.P.C in connection with police officer has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of D.Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695. Paragraph no.30 and 49 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

“30. The object of sanction for prosecution, whether under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, is to protect a public servant/police officer discharging official duties and functions from harassment by initiation of frivolous retaliatory criminal proceedings. As held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari : (AIR p. 48, para 15)

“15. … Public servants have to be protected from harassment in the discharge of official duties while ordinary citizens not so engaged do not require this safeguard. …

There is no question of any discrimination between one person and another in the matter of taking proceedings against a public servant for an act done or purporting to be done by the public servant in the discharge of his official duties. No one can take such proceedings without such sanction.”

49. Citing the judgment of this Court