Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required when a public servant's alleged misconduct is not connected to their official duties.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is at the behest of the petitioner questioning the correctness, legality and judicial proprietary of the impugned orders dated 2nd August, 2012 passed in ICC Case No.35 of 2011 vide Annexure-4 and dated 11^th June, 2019 in Criminal Revision Petition No.29 of 2013 under Annexure-5 on the grounds inter alia that it is not tenable in law with a consequential direction to the learned J.M.F.C., Aska to take cognizance of the alleged offences and to proceed against opposite party No.2.

2. The petitioner is the complainant in 1CC Case No.35 of 2011 which is filed in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Aska alleging that on 22^nd October, 2011, he was called to the local PS and was asked to return an amount of Rs.2.9 lac allegedly received from one Bhanjani Bhuyan, wife of late Sibaram Bhuyan in the year 2008 and when such liability was denied, he was abused by opposite party No.2 in unparliamentary language, slapped and assaulted by kick blows and confined in the lock-up of the PS for two days compelling him to return the amount and in course of events, was demanded Rs.50,000/- as a condition to release him, which was arranged and paid in part. With such allegation in the complaint, 1CC Case No.35 of 2011 was registered. After receipt of the said complaint, the learned J.M.F.C., Aska examined the petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and held enquiry in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 2nd August, 2012 by not taking cognizance of the offences due to want of sanction under Section 197 . The aforesaid order vide Annexure-4 in 1CC Case No.35 of 2011 was challenged before the court of learned Additional Session Judge, Aska in Criminal Revision Petition No.29 of 2013 which was disposed of on 11^th June, 2019 vide Annexure-5 confirming the need of sanction. The decision of the learned courts below on sanction is questioned by the petitioner on the ground that considering the conduct of opposite party No.2, it was not necessary as the mischief committed by him cannot said to be within the purview of official duty.

3. Heard Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Praharaj, learned ASC for the State-opposite party No.1 and Mr. Pattanaik, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

4. Learned J.M.F.C., Aska and also the Sessions court reached at a conclusion that considering the allegations in the complaint and the fact that opposite party No.2 was on duty at the relevant point of time, in order to prosecute him, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is required. However, Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the manner in which opposite party No.2 conducted himself and ill-treated the petitioner in connection with a transaction allegedly between the latter and a 3^rd party, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be held as a part of his official duty and therefore, sanction under Cr.P.C could not have been demanded by the learned J.M.F.C., Aska which was again confirmed in revision. Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the following decisions, such as, Satyanarayan Dash Vs. Rankanidhi Sethi , 2013 (II) OLR 717; Smt. Sumati Nayak Vs. State of Odisha and Another , 2022 (II) OLR 921 and Pranab Kumar Pradhan and Another Vs. State of Orissa and Another , 2016 (I) OLR 855 to contend that opposite party No.2, for the alleged acts done by him, while dealing with the petitioner, cannot be related to the discharge of any official duty which is clearly objectionable and hence, therefore, he cannot avail any such immunity under Cr.P.C.

5. In response to the above, Mr. Patt