IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that a public servant's alleged criminal acts must be connected to official duties to require sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. Both the criminal miscellaneous petition No. 650 of 2021 and Criminal Revision no. 1228 of 2019 have arisen out of the same cases, hence, both the cases are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The brief facts of the case is that PCR case no. 973 of 2007 has been filed by the complainant Binod Shanker Jha alleging therein that on 02.12.2007, at about 8.00 PM, the petitioner ordered the co-accused Diwakar Prasad Singh, to open the lock of the house and to take forcible possession thereof. The complainant along with the witnesses of the complaint, opposed the breaking open of the lock of the house, by the petitioner, but the petitioner assaulted the complainant with fists and slaps. The co-accused committed the theft of the stove and took away the troch. The witness Puran Singh, raised hue and cry whereupon the witnesses came to the place of occurrence. The complainant went to Deoghar police station but his FIR was not registered and the police did take any action, hence, he filed the complaint. The cognizance has been taken by learned JMFC, Deoghar, involving the offences punishable under Sections, 323, 448, 379, 34 of IPC. The petitioner filed a petition for his discharge on 30.05.2018 and the co-accused also, filed another separate petition for discharge on 14.05.2018. Learned JMFC, Deoghar vide order dated 12.07.2019, considering the evidence of five witnesses, whose depositions were recorded before charge and the material available in the record against the petitioners, came to the conclusion that there is sufficient materials in the record, which gives rise to the reasonable suspicion of the commission of the alleged offences by the petitioner and rejected the separate discharge petitions of the both the accused persons and fixed the date on 06.08.2019 for framing of charge and directed the petitioner to be physically present on that date.

4. The Criminal Revision No. 1228 of 2019 was filed on 18.09.2019 and during pendency of the said criminal revision, the petitioner of the said Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, filed a petition seeking indulgence of the trial court, to direct the complainant to get sanction of prosecution against the petitioner and in absence of the said prosecution, should not frame the charge, as the petitioner claimed that he being the District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar, is entitled for the protection given under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that the offence committed by the petitioner has got nothing to do with his official duty as the time of the commission of the offence is 8.00 P.M., hence, no sanction is required. Learned JMFC, Deoghar, considered that the five witnesses have been examined before charge, and the said evidence was closed on 04.06.2018 and the case as on 07.02.2020 when the said order was passed, was pending at the stage of framing of charge and from the record, it appeared to the learned JMFC, Deoghar that the petitioner is avoiding the process and is lingering the case. It appeared to learned JMFC, Deoghar that at the time of commission of the offence, the petitioner, was not discharging his official duty. Learned Magistrate, considering the settled principle of law, in the case of Sankaran Moitra vs. Sadhna Das and Another, (2006) 4 SCC 584, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that that acts said to be committed by the public servant must be having reasonable connection with the duty sought to be discharged by such public officer and if the act, complained of has no nexus, reasonable connection or relevant to the official act or duty of such public servant and is otherwise illegal, unlawful or in nature of an offence, he cannot get shelter under Section 197 of Cr.P.C and having regard to the facts and circumstances, of the case, formed an opinion that no sanction is required to prosecute the petitioner and rejected the said petition o