Sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory for prosecuting public servants for actions taken while performing official duties, preventing misuse of legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this application, the Petitioner (the Inspector In Charge) seeks to quash the order dated 10^th November, 2014 passed by the S.D.J.M., Baliguda in I.C.C. No.23 of 2014.

3. The background facts of the case are that the complainant in 1 C.C No. 23 of 2014 visited K. Nuagaon Police Station on 14^th August, 2014 at the noon hour for the purpose of lodging a report regarding missing of his buffaloes. It is alleged that the Petitioner being the Inspector In Charge of the Police Station was present. When the complainant tendered the report, the Inspector In Charge, without accepting or even going through the contents of the FIR scolded the Complainant (Opposite Party No.2), in obscene words and filthy languages in a public place causing annoyance to him, he being a respected person of the society. The utterance of filthy language and scolding by the Inspector in Charge attributing to his caste and none acceptance of the report compelled him to bring it to the notice of the higher authority. As the action of the complainant did not yield any result, he filed the complaint. The learned court below upon initial examination of the complainant and witnesses and the enquiry conducted U/s. 202 Cr.P.C. satisfied as to the existence of material to proceed against the Petitioner and took cognizance in the offence U/s. 294/506 IPC read with offences U/s. 3(1)(i) (x) of the SC & ST (PA) Act and issued process against the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned court below in taking cognizance, the Petitioner moved in the present as mentioned above.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner, inter alia, that the learned court below erred in law by taking cognizance not being conscious of the position of law as regards the sanction of prosecution enumerated U/s.197 Cr.P.C. which the court ought to have gone into before taking cognizance against a public servant inasmuch as the very complaint candidly reveals that the Petitioner being the Inspector in Charge of the Police Station was present in the Police Station and was discharging his official duty allegedly to have committed the overt act.

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the issuance of process against the present Petitioner without a sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is illegal and cannot sustain in the eye of law. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash and others v. State of Jharkhand to the Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi reported in (2012) 12 SCC 72 , in the case of Sankarsan Maitra v. Sadhana Das and others , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 584 and in the case of D. Debaraja v. Owais Sabber Hussain in Criminal Appeal No.458 of 2020.

6. Despite service of notice, the Informant, Opposite Party No.2 though represented by his counsel found not present on call.

7. Learned ASC, on the other hand, contended that the act alleged and the overt act shown dehors the official duty of a public servant could not have been insisted upon for a sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and has rightly been proceeded and the order impugned in taking cognizance is, therefore, just and legal.

8. Perusal of the averments made in the complaint emerges that at the time of visit of the complainant, the Petitioner was very much present in the Police Station on duty and the incident took place in the premises of the Police Station. The alleged act of the Petitioner admittedly is one while he was discharging his duty which is not in dispute. The sole question remained scrutiny is on the face of the act complained required for the court below to insist t