High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE HIG E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 2089 of 2022 Indrakhi Prasa rasad Dash …. Petitioner Pe Mr. Md. Riaz, A iaz, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha isha & others …. Opp. Parties Opp. ash, Addl. P.P. Mr. R.B. Dash, Ad for O.P. No.1 for O Assisted by Mr. G. Mukherji, Sr. Advocate, Ass rya, Advocate Mr. S. Acharya, A for O.P. No.2 for O yat, Advocate Ms. S. Pasayat, A for O.P. No.3 for O CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN D JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 12.09.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. 2. Heard learn rd learned counsels for both the parties. By means eans of this application, the Petitioner seek er seeks to quash the order dated dated 17.05.2022 passed by the learned earned S.D.J.M., Rayagada in I.C.C I.C.C. Case No.04 of 2018. 3. The backg background facts of the case are that the at the Petitioner, being the Complai mplainant, initiated a complaint case before before the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagad ayagada, registered as I.C.C. No.04 of 20 of 2018 against Opposite Party N rty Nos.2 and 3. It was alleged that the at the Petitioner, acting as attorney torney on behalf of his client, visited the O the Office of the Tahasildar betwee between 11.30 a.m. and 12.00 noon to as to ascertain the CRLMC No. 2089 of of 2022 Page 1 of 12 progress in Muta Mutation Case No.0185 of 2017. Accord ccording to the Petitioner, though hough he had filed his Vakalatnama in the in the said case, upon verification h ation he discovered that the same was not a s not available in the case record. W ord. When the grievance was brought to th t to the notice of Opposite Party N rty No.2, the then Tahasildar, Gunupur, s pur, she became annoyed and alleg allegedly misbehaved with the Petitioner. ioner. It is stated that the Petitioner tioner politely reiterated that the Vakalatnam latnama had been duly filed along w ong with the Mutation Case, but the same w ame was missing from the record. cord. Opposite Party No.2 thereafter calle called Opposite Party No.3, the de the dealing assistant, to verify the position sition and, being further annoyed, th yed, threatened to call the police against the nst the Petitioner. Feeling aggrieved rieved by such conduct of the Tahasildar an dar and the staff, the Petitioner inst er instituted the said complaint. The learned learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur, after fol ter following due procedure and examining mining witnesses under Section 202 n 202 Cr.P.C., passed the impugned order d rder directing the Petitioner to obta obtain sanction on the ground that the t the allegations
Legal Reasoning
prima facie appear appeared to have a reasonable nexus with th ith the discharge of official duties duties by the accused persons. The Petitio Petitioner, being aggrieved by the a y the aforesaid order of the learned S.D.J.M D.J.M., Gunupur, has impugned the s d the same in the present application. 4. Mr. Riaz, Riaz, learned counsel for the Petitioner, tioner, inter alia, contended that the hat the necessity of sanction under Section 1 ction 197 Cr.P.C. is a matter to be e o be examined during the course of trial. A rial. According to him, the burden rden lies on the Complainant to establis stablish that the accused persons a sons acted in discharge of their official duti al duties and that there existed no n d no nexus between the alleged acts and su and such official duties. It was thu as thus urged that at the very threshold, w old, while taking CRLMC No. 2089 of of 2022 Page 2 of 12 cognizance of the of the offences, the learned court ought n ught not to have insisted upon pro n production of sanction. The learned co ned counsel also relied upon the de the decision in the matter of Inspector of r of Police and Another vs. Batte attenapatla Venkata Ratnam and anothe other, reported in (2015) 13 Supre upreme Court Cases 87. 5. Per contra contra, Mr. G. Mukherji, learned Senior enior Advocate, appearing on beh n behalf of Opposite Party No.2, submitte ubmitted that the impugned order do rder does not warrant interference. It was con as contended that even on the Petiti Petitioner’s own showing, the grievance a ance arose in the context of the Tah e Tahasildar and her staff acting in the cou he course of their official functions. tions. The Petitioner’s allegation that the V the Vakalatnama filed in the Mutati Mutation Case was not found in the record ecord could have been addressed thr sed through appropriate official channels rat els rather than by directly questioni estioning the Tahasildar. As is evident vident from the pleadings, the Tah e Tahasildar, upon receiving the grievance, c ance, called upon the dealing assista assistant to verify the record and thus ac hus acted strictly within the scope scope of her official duties. Therefore, t fore, the actions complained of bea of bear a reasonable nexus with the discharge charge of official duty, attracting the ing the bar under Section 197 Cr.P.C., and co and consequently sanction was rightl .M. s rightly insisted upon by the learned S.D.J.M 6. Mr. Dash, Dash, learned counsel for the State sup te supported the impugned order a rder and submitted that the learned S.D.J S.D.J.M. rightly directed the Petit Petitioner to produce sanction under S der Section 197 Cr.P.C. It was con as contended that the materials on record un ord unmistakably reveal that the alle he alleged acts were committed by the Opp e Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 in th 3 in the course of their official functions. ctions. When the Petitioner raised h ised his grievance regarding the non-availab availability of the CRLMC No. 2089 of of 2022 Page 3 of 12 Vakalatnama in th a in the mutation record, the Tahasildar calle ar called upon the dealing assistant istant to verify the position, which was was an action integrally connecte nnected with the discharge of her official ficial duties. The alleged misbehavi behaviour or threats, if any, also arose in t se in that context and cannot be deli e delinked from the official functions being ing performed at the relevant tim nt time. It was further argued that Section 1 ction 197 Cr.P.C. acts as a safeguar feguard for public servants to ensure that th that they are not subjected to vexa vexatious prosecution for acts reasonably onably connected with their official d ficial duty, even if such acts are alleged to h d to have been in excess of authority thority. Finally, he prayed that the learned arned Magistrate having rightly app ly appreciated the law, the impugned order order calls for no interference. 7. In the deci e decision relied upon by the Petitioner, B Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam am (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court h ourt has held as follows: Public servants have, in fact, been treated “10. Public al category under Section 197 CrPC, to protec special cate malicious or vexatious prosecution. Such pro from malic harassment is given in public interest; the from haras ot e be treated as a shield to protect corrupt of cannot e be bramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, at pa In Subrama s been held that the provisions dealing with S it has been CrPC must be construed in such a manner 197 CrPC nce justice and the cause of honesty, advance rnance. To quote: (SCC pp. 101-02) governance treated as a protect them ch protection st; the same upt officials. h, at para 74, with Section anner as to and good 74. Publ persons perform without t said pro was exte to prote . Public servants are treated as a special cl rsons enjoying the said protection so that th rform their duties without fear and favou thout threats of malicious prosecution. Howev id protection against malicious prosecution s extended in public interest cannot become a protect corrupt officials. These provisions cial class of hat they can favour and owever, the ution which ome a shield isions being CRLMC No. 2089 of of 2022 Page 4 of 12 to the provisions exceptio analogo discrimin very narr sanction advance governan rticle 14 are ceptions to the equality provision of Article protective pro alogous be construed scrimination and these protections must be con ns relating to ry narrowly. These procedural provisions rela anner as to nction must be construed in such a manner ce and good vance the causes of honesty and justice and rruption." vernance as opposed to escalation of corruptio of 11. The all fabrication to be in di duty is no payment o Unfortunate aspects. Th view that considered, he alleged indulgence of the officers in ch cation of records or misappropriation cannot b in discharge of their official duty. Their o is not to fabricate records or permit evas ent of duty and cause loss to the Re rtunately, the High Court missed these ts. The learned Magistrate has correctly tak that if at all the said view of sanction is idered, it could be done at the stage of trial onl in cheating, nnot be said Their official evasion of e Revenue. hese crucial tly taken the ion is to be ial only. ××× 28. Section out hereinb ection 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ereinbelow for convenience: cedure is set 197. Pro When an or a publ by or wi of any of while act official d offence e 7. Prosecution of Judges and public servan hen any person who is or was a Judge or Mag a public servant not removable from his offic or with the sanction of the Government is A any offence alleged to have been committed b ile acting or purporting to act in the discharge ficial duty, no court shall take cognisance o fence except with the previous sanction- servants.-(1) r Magistrate is office save t is Accused itted by him charge of his ance of such (a) in the case ma alleged affairs of ) in the case of a person who is employed or, ed or, as the se may be, was at the time of commission ission of the on with the eged offence employed, in connection wi ment; fairs of the Union, of the Central Government; (b) in the case ma alleged affairs of ) in the case of a person who is employed or, se may be, was at the time of commission eged offence employed, in connection wi fairs of a State, of the State Government. ed or, as the ission of the on with the ××× 30. A care Criminal P bar on the careful reading of Section 197 of the Co inal Procedure unequivocally delineates a sta on the Court's jurisdiction to take cognisan the Code of s a statutory gnisance of CRLMC No. 2089 of of 2022 Page 5 of 12 e without the ces alleged against public servants, save witho offences all nment. The sanction of the appropriate government prior sanc lity of this tial precondition for the applicability o essential p t have been ision is that the alleged offence must have provision i cting in the itted by the public servant while acting committed their official arge of, or purported discharge of, their o discharge o of the Code s. The protective mantle of Section 197 of the duties. The olute; it does riminal Procedure, however, is not absolute; of Crimina the scope of xtend to acts that are manifestly beyond the sc not extend . Acts bereft ial duty or wholly unconnected thereto. Acts official dut s fall outside y reasonable nexus to official functions fall o of any reas tract the bar mbit of this safeguard and do not attract t the ambit of Criminal imposed U sed Under Section 197 of the Code of Cr edure.” Procedure. 8. The Learned cou ed counsel for the Opposite Parties on the n the other hand relied upon the n the decision in the matter of G.C. Manj anjunath and others vs. Seetar eetaram reported in MANU/SC/0437/202 /2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supr e Supreme Court has held as follows:- ssociation of This Court in Amod Kumar Kanth v. Associa “33. This C /0514/2023: m of Uphaar Tragedy, MANU/SC/0514 Victim of performs its 3) 16 SCC 239 held that the State perfor (2023) 16 and every ations through its officers/public servants and obligations is ultimately ion performed by a public servant is ulti function pe , their roles d at achieving public welfare. Often, their aimed at a rcise of such ve a degree of discretion. But the exercise o involve a d ircumstances etion cannot be separated from the circums discretion in cases of timing in which it is exercised or, in ca and timing such . the omission occurs. In In sion, when omission, whether the mstances, the courts must address, wheth circumstanc ial duties. It er was acting in the discharge of official du officer was ts under the observed that even when an officer acts und was observ re entitled to orted exercise of official powers, they are enti purported e of Criminal ction Under Section 197 of the Code of Cr protection id reason so edure. This protection exists for a valid rea Procedure. their duties their the public servants can perform the p that legal action, essly, without constant apprehension of legal fearlessly, w ction 197 of ng as they act in good faith. While Section as long as ot explicitly Code of Criminal Procedure does not exp the Code a condition ion the requirement of good faith, such a con mention the CRLMC No. 2089 of of 2022 Page 6 of 12 is implied statutes tha and crimina plied and is expressly included in several tes that offer protection to public servants from riminal liability. everal other ts from civil ××× 35. Recent Gupta, MA the object Criminal Pr ecently, this Court in Gurmeet Kaur v. De a, MANU/SC/1329/2024: 2024:IN5C:967 dea bject and purpose of Section 197 of the C inal Procedure which reads as follows: v. Devender 67 dealt with the Code of 22.... the protect unjustifie their dut entrusted Code of is a bar f which ar the prev when th public se case the question public s excess in require sanction regard, t Sub-sect offence a acting o official d offence e for the p qua non offence "discharg would cl Criminal public se hors or official d the object and purpose of the said provisio otect officers and officials of the State justified criminal prosecution while they dis eir duties within the scope and ambit of their p trusted to them. A reading of Section 197 de of Criminal Procedure would indicate tha a bar for a Court to take cognisance of such of ich are mentioned in the said provision excep e previous sanction of the appropriate gover en the allegations are made against, inter blic servant. There is no doubt that in the se the Appellant herein was a public servant b estion is, whether, while discharging her dut blic servant on the relevant date, there wa cess in the discharge of the said duty which d quire the first Respondent herein to take a nction for prosecuting the Appellant herein. gard, the salient words which are relevant section (1) of Section 197 are "is Accused fence alleged to have been committed by him ting or purporting to act in the discharge ficial duty, no Court shall take cognisance o fence except with the previous sanction". The r the purpose of application of Section 197, a non is that the public servant is Accused fence which had been committed by h ischarge of his official duty. The said expr uld clearly indicate that Section 197 of the C iminal Procedure would not apply to a cas ic servant is Accused of any offence which rs or not connected to the discharge of his ficial duty. rovision is to State from ey discharge their powers 197 of the ate that there uch offences except with government inter alia, a n the instant rvant but the er duty as a ere was any hich did not take a prior erein. In this evant Under cused of any y him while harge of his ance of such ". Therefore, 197, a sine cused of any by him in d expression the Code of a case if a which is de f his or her CRLMC No. 2089 of of 2022 Page 7 of 12 36. In ligh principle go well crysta impugned a official du manifestly of the pub obviated. reasonable official du umbrella o Procedure a In such cas sine qua n exceeded t while disch In light of the aforesaid judgments, the g iple governing the necessity of prior sanction crystallised. The pivotal inquiry is wheth gned act is reasonably connected to the discha ial duty. If the act is wholly unconnect festly devoid of any nexus to the official fun e public servant, the requirement of sanct ted. Conversely, where there exists ev nable link between the act complained of a ial duties of the public servant, the pro ella of Section 197 of the Code of Cr edure and Section 170 of the Police Act is att ch cases, prior sanction assumes the characte qua non, regardless of whether the public s eded the scope of authority or acted impr discharging his duty. the guiding nction stands whether the discharge of onnected or ial functions sanction is sts even a d of and the e protective of Criminal t is attracted. haracter of a ublic servant improperly ××× n the present case, it is evident that the a ed to the Accused persons emanate fro arge of their official duties, specifical ection with the investigation of criminal ing against the complainant. As prev rved, a mere excess or overreach in the perfor icial duty does not, by itself, disentitle a nt from the statutory protection mandated b safeguard of obtaining prior sanction fro etent authority, as envisaged Under Section ode of Criminal Procedure and Section 170 e Act cannot be rendered nugatory merely b cts alleged may have exceeded the strict bou ial duty. In view of the foregoing, we are idered opinion that the learned VII Additional opolitan Magistrate erred in taking cognisance ed offences against the Accused persons witho site sanction for prosecution in the instant cas ce of the necessary sanction vitiates the tion of criminal proceedings against the A the actions te from the cifically in minal cases previously performance itle a public ated by law. n from the ction 197 of 170 of the rely because ct bounds of e are of the itional Chief isance of the s without the ant case. The es the very the Accused 40. In the attributed discharge connection pending a observed, a of official servant fro The safegu competent the Code o Police Act the acts all official dut considered Metropolita alleged offe requisite sa absence of initiation o persons.” CRLMC No. 2089 of of 2022 Page 8 of 12 9. In the give e given circumstances, it is profitable to rep to reproduce the relevant provision vision enumerated under Section 197 of the the Cr.P.C as under:- Prosecution of Judges and public servants n any person who is or was a Judge or Magist lic servant not removable from his office save the sanction of the Government is accused ce alleged to have been committed by him g or purporting to act in the discharge of his o no Court shall take cognizance of such o pt with the previous sanction [save as oth ided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 rvants.—(1) agistrate or ce save by or cused of any y him while f his official such offence as otherwise t, 2013 (1 of 197. Prose When any p a public ser with the sa offence all acting or pu duty, no C except wit provided in 2014)]— (a) in the c case may alleged offe of the Unio the case of a person who is employed or, may be, was at the time of commission ed offence employed, in connection with the e Union, of the Central Government; ed or, as the ssion of the th the affairs (b) in the c case may alleged offe of a State, n the case of a person who is employed or, may be, was at the time of commission ed offence employed, in connection with the tate, of the State Government: ed or, as the ssion of the th the affairs [Provided t by a perso while a Pro 356 of the C will apply occurring t were substi ided that where the alleged offence was com person referred to in clause (b) during the a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of f the Constitution was in force in a State, clau apply as if for the expression “State Govern rring therein, the expression “Central Govern substituted.] s committed g the period (1) of article te, clause (b) overnment” overnment” Explanation declared th public serv been comm section 354 section 354 section 37 376DA, se Penal Code anation.—For the removal of doubts it is h red that no sanction shall be required in cas c servant accused of any offence alleged to committed under section 166A, section on 354, section 354A, section 354B, section on 354D, section 370, section 375, 3[section on 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, s A, section 376DB] or section 509 of the l Code (45 of 1860). it is hereby in case of a ged to have ction 166B, ection 354C, ection 376A, 6D, section f the Indian CRLMC No. 2089 of of 2022 Page 9 of 12 (2) No Co alleged to Armed For act in the d previous sa No Court shall take cognizance of any o ed to have been committed by any member ed Forces of the Union while acting or purpor the discharge of his official duty, except w ous sanction of the Central Government. any offence ember of the purporting to ept with the (3) The St that the pro class or cat with the ma therein, wh provisions expression expression The State Government may, by notification, the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply t or category of the members of the Forces c the maintenance of public order as may be sp in, wherever they may be serving, and thereup isions of that sub-section will apply as if f ssion “Central Government” occurring there ssion “State Government” were substituted. ation, direct pply to such rces charged be specified hereupon the as if for the therein, the (3A) Notw (3), no co alleged to Forces char State while his official issued unde was in forc the Central Notwithstanding anything contained in sub no court shall take cognizance of any of ed to have been committed by any member es charged with the maintenance of public ord while acting or purporting to act in the discha fficial duty during the period while a Proclam d under clause (1) of article 356 of the Const in force therein, except with the previous sanc entral Government. n sub-section any offence, ember of the lic order in a discharge of Proclamation Constitution s sanction of Notwithstanding anything to the contrary con is Code or any other law, it is hereby declare sanction accorded by the State Government izance taken by a court upon such sanction, eriod commencing on the 20th day of August nding with the date immediately preceding th hich the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amend 1991 (43 of 1991), receives the assent dent, with respect to an offence alleged to hav itted during the period while a Proclamation r clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution in the State, shall be invalid and it sh etent for the Central Government in such ma rd sanction and for the court to take cogn ry contained declared that ment or any ction, during ugust, 1991 ding the date Amendment) ssent of the to have been ation issued tution was in it shall be ch matter to cognizance (3B) Notwi in this Cod any sanctio cognizance the period c and ending on which th Act, 1991 President, w committed under claus force in th competent accord san thereon.] (4) The Cen the case ma manner in w the prosec he Central Government or the State Governm ase may be, may determine the person by who er in which, and the offence or offences for prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or vernment, as y whom, the es for which, te or public CRLMC No. 2089 of of 2022 Page 10 of 12 servant is before whic nt is to be conducted, and may specify the e which the trial is to be held. fy the Court 10. The said p said provision creates a bar on the court f ourt from taking cognizance of an of an offence alleged to have been comm committed by a public servant whi nt while acting or purporting to act in the d the discharge of official duty, exce , except with the previous sanction of the of the competent authority. The test he test laid down by judicial precedents is w ts is whether the act complained of ned of has a reasonable nexus with the d the discharge of official duty, even , even if the act is alleged to have been in e en in excess of or in dereliction of n of such duty. If the answer is in the a the affirmative, sanction becomes omes a condition precedent before cogniza ognizance can be taken. 11. Having reg ing regard to the facts of the present case, case, as revealed from the records, ords, the Petitioner, a practicing Advocate, ocate, had visited the Office of the the Tahasildar and on verification foun n found that the Vakalatnama filed a filed by him was not appended to the muta mutation record. Upon the grievanc ievance being brought to the notice of the f the Tahasildar, the latter called th lled the dealing assistant to ascertain the cor the correctness of the grievance. Suc e. Such action, on the face of it, was in due d due discharge of official duty, as y, as expected from a public servant. T ant. The further allegation that the at the Tahasildar became annoyed and th threatened to call the Police also ce also cannot be viewed in isolation, inasm , inasmuch as the same was in the c the context of maintaining order and autho authority within the office while while discharging official functions. Thus . Thus, the acts complained of bea of bear a close and reasonable nexus with th ith the discharge of official duty. CRLMC No. 2089 of of 2022 Page 11 of 12 12. Consequen sequently, this Court is of the considered vi red view that the learned S.D.J.M. .J.M. rightly insisted on sanction under S der Section 197 Cr.P.C. before p ore proceeding further. The impugned o ned order dated 17.05.2022 does does not suffer from any illegality or lity or infirmity warranting interfer nterference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accor Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dis nds dismissed as being devoid of merit. (Chittaranjan Da n Dash) Judge Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 15-Sep-2025 19:18:55 CRLMC No. 2089 of of 2022 Page 12 of 12