IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 13 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8530 of 2017 ARUN KUMAR Versus P.K. SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shashank Shekhar - Senior Advocate with Shri Samresh Katare -

Advocate the petitioner.

Shri Sarthak Nema - Advocate for respondent No.1.

WITH MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8609 of 2017 NIZAM QURESHI Versus P.K. SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shashank Shekhar - Senior Advocate with Shri Samresh Katare -

Advocate the petitioner.

Shri Sarthak Nema - Advocate for respondent No.1.

ORDER These petitions have been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of the order dated 25.03.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa, whereby cognizance has been taken against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 465, 469, 471 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code in a complaint case instituted under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

2. For convenience, brief facts are being narrated from M.Cr.C.No.8609/2017.

3. Facts of the case reveals that the applicants are a retired Class-I Officer of the Indian Forest Service. During the relevant period from 16.12.2012 to 31.05.2015, he was posted as Conservator of Forest, Satna Division. In that capacity, he was entrusted with the responsibility of establishment and execution of works relating to Mukundpur Zoo and Rescue Centre, along with other territorial forest functions of the Division. On 25.07.2014, the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, directed that an enquiry be conducted on the basis of a complaint submitted by one Amit Kumar, Advocate. Pursuant thereto, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted an enquiry in August, 2014 and submitted his report dated 24.12.2014. The said report allegedly contained findings regarding certain irregularities in execution of works relating to Mukundpur Zoo. On the basis of the enquiry report, a charge-sheet dated 27.05.2015 was issued against the applicant initiating departmental proceedings. It is not in dispute that the applicant even after retirement is facing the said departmental enquiry. Subsequently, respondent No.1, who was serving as Chief Conservator of Forest, Rewa during the relevant period and was stated to be in supervisory control over the applicant, filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court of JMFC, Rewa. In the complaint, allegations were made that the applicant, along with other co-accused, had hatched a criminal conspiracy, forged documents and made defamatory imputations against respondent No.1 in connection with the administrative affairs of Mukundpur Zoo. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and examined witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Upon consideration of the material placed before him, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 25.03.2017 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 465, 469, 471 and 500 IPC against the applicant. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court primarily on the ground that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was mandatory before taking cognizance as the alleged acts were committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire genesis of the dispute arises out of official acts performed in the course of discharge of statutory and administrative duties as Conservator of Forest. It is contended that the complaint is a counterblast to departmental proceedings and has been filed with oblique motives. It is urged that the allegations of forgery and defamation are intrinsically linked with official communications, reports and administrative decisions relating to the functioning of Mukundpur Zoo. According to the applicant, all acts complained of were performed in official capacity and in furtherance of governmental duties. It is furt