Public servants are protected from prosecution for acts done in discharge of official duties under Section 197 Cr.P.C., unless the act is proven to be outside the scope of their official duties.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) :

In both the cases, common question of facts and laws are involved and in view of that, both the cases have been heard together with consent of the parties.

2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.702 of 2011 and Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.918 of 2011, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned counsel for the State in Cr.M.P. No.702 of 2011 and Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State in Cr.M.P. No.918 of 2011 and Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in both the cases.

3. These petitions have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.P. No.1559 of 2010 including the order taking cognizance dated 25.03.2011, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 167 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad.

4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.702 of 2011, who was the Officer-in-Charge of Dhanbad Police Station has created incorrect station diary entry in violation of Jharkhand Police Manual Rule 116, which was created just to help one of his Captain Shittal Oraon in conspiracy with accused no.2-Deo Narayan Ranju @ D.N. Ranju (petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.918 of 2011), who was conducting the departmental proceeding against the complainant since the complainant had reported his misdeed to his superior authorities and on the basis of incorrect station diary entry, the complainant was declared guilty and ordered for compulsory retirement. It was further alleged that the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.702 of 2011 has created the said station diary entry in violation of the Rules. It was also alleged that there is change in the entry number of the station diary. It was further alleged that the only motive behind this is to cause injury to the complainant.

5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.702 of 2011 submits that the petitioner-Ram Shankar Singh @ Ramashankar Singh was the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station at Dhanbad. Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.918 of 2011 submits that the petitioner-Deo Narayan Ranju @ D.N. Ranju was the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he was posted at Dhanbad. They submit that the alleged date of occurrence is 18.03.2008, whereas, the present complaint case has been filed on 26.08.2010. They further submit that false allegations are made in the complaint petition that false entry in the station diary was made by Ram Shankar Singh @ Ramashankar Singh, who was the Officer-in-Charge. They also submit that the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the complainant and the said departmental proceeding was challenged by opposite party no.2 before this Court in the writ petition which was dismissed. They further submit that at any point of time, the said entry was not challenged by opposite party no.2 either before any competent Court of law or in a departmental proceeding. Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner adds further point by way of submitted that the petitioner-Deo Narayan Ranju @ D.N. Ranju was the only Inquiry Officer and he was given his finding and because of that, the said Inquiry Officer has been made accused in the present complaint case. They further submit that the petitioners were discharging their official duty and in view of that they are protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C. They submit that maliciously the case has been filed against the petitioners.

6. Per contra, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are being resisted by Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 on the ground that on the false entry in the station diary, the opposite party no.2 was asked to compulsory retire. He submits that the delay cannot be a