Protection of public servants under Section 197 requires a reasonable connection between alleged acts and official duties, with prosecution permissible only upon obtaining requisite sanction.

JUDGMENT :

CHITTARANJAN DASH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

2. By this application, the Petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 09.05.2024, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Boudh in dismissing the complaint, and the subsequent order dated 22.03.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Boudh in C.R.P. No.1 of 2024.

3. The Petitioner is actively involved in promoting social justice and routinely brings instances of illegality to the notice of the competent authorities. In one such instance, he became aware that certain children were engaged in hazardous child labour and accordingly reported the matter to the District Labour Officer (DLO), Boudh. The DLO acknowledged the information, appreciated the Petitioner’s efforts, and assured that legal action would be taken against the offenders.

After a considerable lapse of time, the DLO conducted a spot inquiry at Village Bahira (Tentulipali) on 10.08.2023. The Petitioner made repeated visits to the DLO’s office to ascertain the progress of the case. On each occasion, the DLO avoided giving a definite response and merely stated that the matter would be looked into. However, on 25.01.2024, when the Petitioner again sought an update regarding his complaint dated 06.02.2023, the DLO became annoyed, accused him of making false and baseless allegations, and threatened him with prosecution.

When the Petitioner protested, the DLO allegedly abused him in foul language, forcibly pushed him out of the office, and continued to harass him. Aggrieved by this conduct, the Petitioner consulted counsel and filed a complaint before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Boudh, which was registered as 1CC Case No.1 of 2024. The learned S.D.J.M. conducted an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., examined the witnesses, and perused the Petitioner’s statement. Observing that the allegations pertained to actions purportedly done by the DLO in the course of official duty, the S.D.J.M. held that cognizance could not be taken without sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. As no sanction had been obtained, the complaint was dismissed for want of sanction.

Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred C.R.P. No.1 of 2024 before the learned Sessions Judge, Boudh. Upon hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge found no infirmity in the order dated 09.05.2024 of the S.D.J.M. and dismissed the Revision Petition on 22.03.2025. Hence, through the present application, the Petitioner challenges the orders of the learned S.D.J.M., Boudh dated 09.05.2024 and of the learned Sessions Judge, Boudh dated 22.03.2025.

4. Mr. G.K. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner, reiterated the principal grounds earlier urged before the courts below while challenging the order of the learned Magistrate. He strenuously argued that the acts alleged in the complaint do not fall within the ambit of a public servant’s official duties and, therefore, the requirement of prior sanction is wholly misconceived and unsupported by law. He submitted that the DLO, under the guise of official authority, subjected the Petitioner to abuse and unlawful conduct, which can never be treated as an act done in the discharge of official functions. According to him, the alleged misconduct was entirely outside the scope of the DLO’s official capacity. Consequently, the dismissal of the complaint by the learned S.D.J.M., Boudh for want of sanction, and the affirmation of that order by the learned Sessions Judge, are illegal and unsustainable. Mr. Rath accordingly prayed for quashing both orders and permitting the Peti