Acts committed by a public servant, motivated by personal animus, are not protected under Section 197 of the CrPC for the purpose of prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K.Panigrahi, J.

1. The present CRLMC challenges the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned JMFC (R)(Cognizance Taking), Berhampur in I.C.C. No. 88 of 2023 arising out of Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 95 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1063 of 2022, whereby cognizance was taken under Sections 341 /294/506 IPC against the petitioner, who was serving as Executive Officer, NAC Gopalpur at the relevant time and is presently posted as Assistant Commissioner, CMC Cuttack.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The genesis of the dispute relates to an incident dated 23.05.2022 involving the petitioner and the complainant, who was working as a tractor driver engaged in sanitation work under Gopalpur NAC. Allegations were made that the petitioner abused and threatened the complainant during a confrontation concerning non-completion of sanitation work.

(ii) Two FIRs were lodged on the same date. The petitioner first lodged Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 94 of 2022 at 9:30 A.M. alleging abuse and threat by the complainant. Thereafter, at 1:50 P.M., the complainant lodged the counter FIR which was registered as Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 95 of 2022.

(iii) After investigation into the complainant’s FIR, the Investigating Officer submitted Final Form (FR False) vide Gopalpur P.S. F.F. No. 89 dated 30.06.2022. Subsequently, the complainant filed a Protest Petition which was registered as I.C.C. No. 88 of 2023, leading to inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and eventual taking of cognizance.

(iv) The learned Magistrate, after recording initial statement and inquiry evidence, held that a prima facie case exists and concluded that sanction under Section 197 CrPC was not required as the alleged acts of abuse and threat could not be treated as acts done in discharge of official duty.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.

(i) The petitioner contends that the impugned prosecution is manifestly mala fide and has been instituted as a counter-blast to the FIR earlier lodged by him against the complainant, which culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the complainant, thereby revealing the retaliatory nature of the present proceeding.

(ii) It is submitted that the Investigating Officer, upon examining independent witnesses and NAC staff, found the allegations in the complainant’s FIR to be false and accordingly submitted a Final Report. The subsequent Protest Petition, according to the petitioner, is an attempt to revive a case already found baseless after due investigation.

(iii) The principal legal contention raised is that the petitioner, being a public servant not removable without sanction and acting in his capacity as Executive Officer supervising sanitation work, fulfils the twin requirements of Section 197 CrPC, and the alleged acts occurred in the course of, or at least under colour of, discharge of official duty.

(iv) The petitioner argues that supervision of sanitation work and calling an employee to account for dereliction of duty falls squarely within administrative functions, and even assuming arguendo that harsh words were used, the incident is reasonably connected to official duty, thereby mandating prior sanction before cognizance.

(v) Reliance is placed on authoritative precedents includingMatajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari , AIR 1956 SC 44and D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain , 2