ORDER

8.1.2003 — Heard further argument. Hearing is conclud¬ed and judgment is as follows :

2. This application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the order of cognizance passed on 2.1.2001 in I.C.C. No. 44 of 2000 by learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. It reveals from the complaint that allegation has been made against the petitioners complaining of the offence of looting the properties from the house which includes sized woods, wooden furniture, cash and the machineries for carpentery and sawing and in that process exhibiting indecent conduct to the complainant who is the wife of the owner of that premises. After receipt of the complaint, learned Magistrate directed for inves¬tigation under Section 202, Cr. P.C. by the local police and after receipt of the report which went against the petitioner, he conducted an inquiry by himself, examined the complainant’s witnesses and on 2.1.2001 passed the impugned order taking cogni¬zance of the offence under Sections 451, 380, 506/34, I.P.C. Accordingly, learned S.D.J.M issued process against the petition¬ers under Section 204, Cr. P.C. Resisting to that action of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, petitioners claim protection under Section 197, Cr. P.C. on the ground that they were the two Forest Range Officers and their lawful act of conducting raid, search and seizure of illegal timbers, sawn woods and implements for sawing and carpentary has resulted in institution of the afore¬said false complaint with a view to malign and harass them.

3. Certain facts which are not in dispute at the bar is that on 15.1.2000 i.e., the date of occurrence these two officials along with police force and the Magistrate had conducted a raid and seized woods and sawing materials, implements etc. and at that stage they suffered stiff opposition and violent conduct from the people of that locality and because of that the FIR lodged by peti¬tioner No. 2 was registered as G.R. Case No. 147 of 2000 and a charge-sheet under Section 148, 149, 387, 379, 427, 336/294, I.P.C has been filed against some of the co-villagers of the complaint who is the opposite party in this case.

It is also not in dispute that both the petitioners being the Range Officers appointed and working under the State Govern¬ment, and they are removable from service with the sanction of the State Government.

4. In course of hearing some doubt was entertained by opposite party regarding registration of any case under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act relating to confiscation of the seized articles with respect to the seizure which was made on 15.1.2000 resulting in the alleged occurrence. Mr. Misra, learned Addl. Government Advocate, in that respect has obtained the relevant records and instruction and referring to that he states that a P.R. has been registered as O.R. No. 36 of 2002-03 under Saw Mill and Saw Pits Control Act, 1991 so also a proceeding under Section 56 of the Forest Act by the D.F.O., Chandaka Wild Life Division for confiscation of those seized articles.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid facts scenario while learned counsel for the petitioners argues for grant of protection to the petitioners by extending the benefit under Section 197, Cr. P.C. and quashing the impugned order of cognizance because of want of sanction from the State of Orissa. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party argues that the act complained against the petitioners having no connection with the duty assigned to be dis¬charged, they are not entitled to the protection under Section 197, Cr. P.C. at this stage of the criminal proceeding. He fur¬ther argues that at the stage of trial if the petitioner would be able to substantiate their plea then the question of want of sanction may be appropriately adjudicated by the trial Court with due reference to the evidence on record.

Petitioners refer to and rely on the cases of Abdul Wahab Ansari v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2000 S.C. 3137, Gauri Shankar Prasad