The Patna High Court has quashed a summoning order issued against a forest officer after noting that the order was vitiated, for want of any sanction against him, who is a public servant within the meaning of Section 197 CrPC read with Section 73 of the Indian Forest Act. The High Court further held that the purpose of Section 197 CrPC is to afford protection to public servants against frivolous, vexatious prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed by them while acting in the discharge of their official duty.

The High Court was considering a criminal miscellaneous petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.PC for setting aside the impugned order whereby the S.D.J.M. had issued summons against him.

The Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar held, “Hence, the Criminal Proceeding arising out of the cognizance order dated 29.05.2008 and the summoning order dated 23.08.2014 passed against the Petitioner is vitiated, for want of any sanction against the Petitioner, who is a public servant within the meaning of Section 197 Cr.PC read with Section 73 of the Indian Forest Act.”

Referring to Section 197 CrPC, the Bench explained, “The object and purpose underlying this Section is to afford protection to public servants against frivolous, vexatious or false prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty.”

Advocate Surendra Kumar Singh represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Upendra Kumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The complaint case was filed by one Shyam Mandal against the petitioner and the other four accused persons, alleging that the complainant is a clerk in a construction company. The company has several tractors to do its business. It was alleged that in 2008, Stone was being transported by the contractor of the Mining Department. There was a valid challan, and the place of occurrence was outside the forest range. On the date of occurrence, the complainant was coming with a tractor with a stone.

When the complainant, along with the tractor, reached near a village, the accused persons, including the petitioner, intercepted the tractor and asked for the documents. All the relevant and valid documents were shown to them, but the accused-petitioner got the complainant and the driver down from the tractor and assaulted them while asking them to send Rs 25,000 from his owner. The complaint was filed under Section 192 CrPC. Thereafter, the SDJM conducted a presummoning inquiry and issued a summons against the petitioner, finding sufficient material against him.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that the larger interest of efficiency of State administration demands that public servants should be free to perform their official duty fearlessly and undeterred by apprehension of their possible prosecution at the instance of private parties to whom annoyance or injury may have been caused by their legitimate acts done in the discharge of their official duty.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Petitioner is a Range Officer in the Forest Department and the alleged offence was committed by him undisputedly in discharge of his official duty. The Bench explained that, as per Section 73 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, all the forest officers are deemed to be public servants within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code. “I further find that as per Section 197 Cr.PC, any Court is debarred from taking cognizance of any offence, if the alleged offence is committed by the public servants during discharge of his official duty, except with previous sanction from the competent authority. But undisputedly, there is no such sanction applied for by the Complainant, nor is any sanction granted by any competent authority”, it added.

The Bench thus held that the summoning order passed against the Petitioner was vitiated, for want of any sanction against the Petitioner, who is a public servant within the meaning of Section 197 Cr.PC read with Section 73 of the Indian Forest Act.

The Bench further stated, “The Criminal Proceeding against the Petitioner is liable to be quashed also in view of the Bhajan Lal case (supra), which provides, as amongst other things, that if a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed by a High Court under writ jurisdiction as well as inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC.”

The Bench thus concluded the matter by quashing the cognisance and the summoning orders.

Cause Title: Anil Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar (Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No.23310 of 2016)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Surendra Kumar Singh, Ranjit Kumar Singh

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Upendra Kumar, Advocates Sanjay Kumar Jha, Rana Pratap Singh

Click here to read/download Order








Patna High CourtJustice Jitendra Kumar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.