The judgment establishes the principle that actions falling within the scope of official duty and in good faith, as well as proceedings motivated by vengeance, warrant the court's interference and may lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Das, J. - This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (shortly 'Code of Criminal Procedure') with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner in I.C.C. Case No. 124 of 1996 pending before the Sub-Divisional judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar.

2. The case of the opposite party-complainant is.:

On 14.10.1993 the complainant was posted as the Peskier-cum-Personal Assistant to the Judicial Member of the Disciplinary Proceeding Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal). Sometime in April, 1995, when the Judicial Member,.Shri S.K. Panda, was on leave, the accused-petitioner, Smt. Madhur Sarangi, called the opposite party to her chamber and asked him to put up some case records before her. It is pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner, who is the accused in the aforesaid I.C.C. Case, is a member of the Indian Administrative Service and was posted as Member of the Tribunal. It is alleged that the opposite party refused to give those case records to her in the absence of the Presiding Officer, Le., Judicial Member, at which the Petitioner threatened him and said that she is an I.A.S. Officer and she can do much harm to the complainant. It is further alleged that as the opposite party refused to part with the records, the Petitioner on being annoyed wrote a letter to the Additional Secretary to the Government in the Home Department for transfer of the opposite party. Though the Petitioner was not a Member of Administration, yet she designated herself as the Member of Administration. By virtue of that letter, the opposite party was transferred to the cooperation Department and was relieved from the post. It is also alleged that on 20.7.1994, Shri M. Papanna joined as the Judicial Member of the Tribunal and when he could know about the transfer of the opposite party and was convinced that the opposite party was transferred illegally, he passed an order not to relieve the opposite party. The Judicial Member also wrote a D.O. letter to the Home Department but the Home Department ignored that letter. Then the opposite party approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal which passed an order cancelling his transfer and re-posted him in his previous post. Subsequently, as the opposite.party did not get any salary, he was forced to file another case in the Orissa Administrative Tribunal and ultimately his salary was released on 22.12.1994. It is further revealed from the complaint petition that the State of Orissa filed an SLP before the apex Court challenging the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal cancelling the order of transfer and the notice in the said SLP was issued to the opposite party wherein the D.O. letter of the Petitioner dated 2.7.1994 addressed to Shri M. Rajamani, I.A.S., Addl. Secretary to Government in Home Department, was annexed. The said D.O. letter contained certain defamatory statements against the opposite party which came to the knowledge of the opposite party only on receipt of the notice in the aforesaid SLP It is further alleged that though the opposite party sought for permission from the General Administration Department to file a complaint case against the Petitioner, no permission was accorded for which the opposite party filed the complaint petition with a prayer to take cognizance of the offence u/s 500, I.P.C.

3. Statement of the opposite party-complainant was recorded u/s 200, Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned S.D.J.M. by order dated 23.12.1996 took cognizance against the accused-petitioner of the offence u/s 500, I.P.C. while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate took certain documents into consideration, one of which being the D.O. letter dated 2.7.1994 which was enclosed to the complaint petition. In para 4 of the order dated 23.12.1996, the learned Magistrate has observed as follows:

At the time of service of notice from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, along with other papers, a copy of D.O. letter o