Prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is essential for prosecuting public servants for acts performed in their official capacity, ensuring protection against vexatious legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order of cognizance dated 16^th April, 2011 under Annexure-1 passed in 1CC Case No.20 of 2009 by the leaned J.M.F.C., Kodala, Ganjam on the grounds inter alia that the same is not tenable in law and hence, liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.

2. Briefly stated, opposite party No.2 filed a complaint in the court of learned J.M.F.C. Kodala with regard to an incident dated 9^th February, 2008 during which it is alleged that the petitioner and other police staff illegally seized his motorcycle claiming it to be stolen and in that connection, he was ill-treated and abused in filthy language, inasmuch as, the vehicle was not released despite showing proof regarding its ownership. After the complaint was received, the learned court below recorded the initial statement of the complainant and after conducting an enquiry in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C., the impinged order under Anenxue-1 was passed and the petitioner was summoned under Annexue-2. According to the petitioner, the alleged incident related to seizure of a Hero Honda motorcycle from the possession of the brother of opposite party No.2 which was carried out on the complaint of one Akhay Kumar Mohapatra and with regard to its ownership, no valid documents could be produced and therefore, it was not released. The contention of the petitioner is that since the documents submitted by the petitioner failed to satisfy the ownership of the vehicle, it was not released in favour of opposite party No.2 and in order to harass him, the complaint was filed with false allegations made therein and the learned court below without properly verifying the documents and demanding a sanction in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. passed the order of cognizance under Annexue-1. It is alleged that the vehicle in question which was shown to have been purchased from M/s Rohan Auto Riders Pvt. Ltd. stood in the name of one Sunandan Baliarsingh, who claimed to have disposed it of in favour of opposite party No.2 which was sought to be proved by an affidavit on the strength of which it was interimly released by the learned court below on an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C.

3. Mr.J.Sahoo, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below fell into error in taking cognizance of the offences without insisting for sanction which is statutorily required in view of Section 197 Cr.P.C. before criminally prosecuting a public servant. While contending so, a decision of the Apex Court in the case of D. Devaraja Vrs. Owais Sabeer Hussain decided in Criminal Appeal No.458 of 2020 by a judgment dated 18thJune, 2020 which is with regard to sanction is referred to. Apart from above, the decisions in Satyabrata Lenka Vrs. State of Orissa and others MANU/OR/0421/2017 and Sangram Keshari Behera Vrs. Niladri Dhir 2012 SCC Online Ori 316 are also placed reliance on while advancing a case for sanction. Thus, it is contended that the learned court below could not have taken cognizance of the offences without demanding sanction and hence, the impugned order under Annexue-1 is unsustainable in law.

4. Mr.Muduli, leaned AGA justified the decision of the learned court below whereby cognizance of the alleged offences was taken. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 contended that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a public servant and he committed serious illegality by making seizure of the vehicle without an