( 1. ) THIS revision petition is preferred against order dated 18-1-1999 in Cr. Revision No. 65 of 1998 whereby, quashing order passed in Cr. Case No. 80 of 1997 pending before JMFC, Distt. Shivpuri.

( 2. ) NON-APPLICANT P. Vijaykumar filed a private complaint against applicant Dr. Dinesh Sharma under Section 500, 166, 167, 186, 189, 192, 193, 197,198,199,504 and 506 of IPC. After preliminary enquiry, learned Trial Court registered private complaint under Sections 166,167,189,199 and 506 of IPC. This private complaint was pertaining to a letter written by applicant to non-applicant which he feels defamatory and has filed private complaint. After service of summons, applicant Dr. Dinesh Sharma appeared before learned trial Court. He filed an application under Section 197 of Cr. P. C. that without sanction for prosecution, Court cannot take cognizance. Learned Trial Court allowed this application and discharged applicant from above said charges. ( 3. ) AGAINST the order of Trial Court, non-applicant P. Vijaykumar filed a criminal case bearing No. 65 of 1998 and by the impugned order, learned revisional Court allowed revision petition and set-aside Trial Courts order and directed Trial Court to proceed as per law in private complaint. Against the impugned order, this revision petition has been filed.

( 4. ) IT has been argued by learned Counsel for the applicant that applicant Dr. Dinesh Kumar was working as a Sr. Medical Officer in XIIIth Bn. ITBP, Shivpuri. Non-applicant P. Vijaykumar was Commandant in ITBP telecom Bn. Shivpuri. On receiving complaint regarding behaviour of non-applicant, he wrote disputed letter and it was forwarded to higher authorities. It is also argued by learned Counsel for the applicant that he is a public servant. In discharging his official duties, he wrote a letter to non-applicant so he is protected against prosecution under Section 197 of Cr. P. C. and without sanction of Competent Authority, he cannot be prosecuted. He prayed that impugned order be set-aside and order of learned Trial Court be restored and he be discharged from charges.

( 5. ) CONTRARY to that, learned Counsel for the non-applicant supported impugned judgment. He argued that letter dated 15th March, 1997 written by applicant Dr. Dinesh Kumar is defamatory and he did not write this letter in discharge of his official duties so provision of Section 197 of Cr. P. C. does not attract and he cannot get benefit of this provision. No sanction for prosecution is necessary, he prays for dismissal of revision petition and confirming impugned order.

( 6. ) IT has been argued by learned Counsel for the applicant that he was medical Officer, Incharge of Unit Hospital, Telecom Bn. ITBP, Shivpuri M. P. and he was duty bound to look after the health of employees and officers of the bn. including complainant P. Vijaykumar. He wrote a confidential letter to complainant P. Vijaykumar concerning his health, which is part of performance of his official duty, hence, sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P. C. for prosecution is prerequisite for taking cognizance against applicant by Trial Court.

( 7. ) CONTRARY to that, it has been argued by learned Counsel for non-applicant that out of enmity, applicant intentionally wrote a defamatory letter to him and forwarded copy of letter to his senior officer. His act does not come within the purview of performance of official duty, so no sanction is required to prosecute applicant in Court of law. He relied on 2004 (02) AIR 565 (SC) (S. K. Zutshi and another Vs. Bimal Debnath and another ). It has been held by supreme Court that complainant on refusal to pay illegal gratification demanded by the accused, shop of complainant ransacked and goods taken away by accused cognizance taken by Addl. Sessions Judge, justified, protective cover cannot be extended to every act or omission by Public Servant by only those which he done in discharge of official duty. Allegation in complaint regarding demand of illegal gratific