Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required before taking cognizance against public servants for acts performed in the course of official duty, necessitating a thorough inquiry into the nature of the allegations.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 1^st November, 2021 passed in 1CC Case No.02 of 2021 by the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur and for having been summoned in connection therewith on the grounds inter alia that the same is not maintainable due to want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. as all of them were on duty at the relevant point of time.

2. The opposite party lodged the complaint (Annexure-2) in ICC Case No.02 of 2021 against the petitioners for an incident dated 4th March, 2021. As per the complaint, the petitioners committed the alleged mischief described in Annexure-2 and during which and in course of events, they abused and assaulted the opposite party. On receipt of Annexure-2, the learned court below recorded the initial statement of the opposite party under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, proceeded to hold enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and examined a single witness during such enquiry and finally passed the impugned order dated 1st November, 2021 under Annexure-4 by taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 294 , 452, 453, 323, 354 and 506 read with 34 IPC and summoned all of them to appear on the date fixed. The said decision of the learned court below has been challenged by the petitioners, who are the police officials of Puttasingh P.S. in the district of Rayagada. According to the petitioners, they were on duty on the alleged date and had been to the village in question on receiving intelligence report about disposal of contraband Ganja stored in the house of one of the villagers. During that time, according to the petitioners, the person in possession of the contraband Ganja and his supporters armed with traditional weapon started abusing them in filthy language and threatened all with dire consequences, in connection with which, Puttasingh P.S. Case No.27 dated 5th March, 2021 was registered under Sections 147 , 148, 120-B, 341, 342, 332, 353, 354, 325, 307, 395, 435, 294 and 506 besides Section 20 (b)(C) NDPS Act read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. It is, hence, claimed that the learned court below without considering the need for a sanction under law in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioners and therefore, the impugned order under Annexure-4 is bad in law.

3. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Chand, learned counsel for the opposite party.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary before taking cognizance of the alleged offences as the petitioners were on official duty, the fact was not duly enquired into by the learned court below. In that connection, Mr. Mishra refers to the following decisions, such as, Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava Vrs. N.P. Mishra , AIR 1970 SC1661; Nirupama Dey Vrs. Chaitanya Dalua and Others , MANU/OR/0284/2003; Sukumar Panigrahi and Others Vrs. State of Orissa and Others , MANU/OR/0115/2001; Debasis Panigrahi Vrs. State of Orissa and Others , MANU/0R/0867/2009; Tapash Kumar Rath Vrs. Harekrushna Pradhan , 2009(1) ILR-CUT 483 and finally D. Devaraja Vrs. Owais Sabeer Hussain , AIR 2020 SC3292 besides an order dated 16^th November, 2022 (CRLMC No.1922 of 2019) in the case of Nirmal Chandra Panigrahi Vrs. A. Pratap Chandra Rao to contend that in the present case, the learned court below ought to have demanded sanction before passing the impugned order under Annexure-4. So therefore, Mr. Mishra lastly submits that taking cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioners is not su