Orissa High Court
Indrakhi Prasad Dash vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 12 September, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 2089 of 2022
Indrakhi Prasad Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. Md. Riaz, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. R.B. Dash, Addl. P.P.
for O.P. No.1
Mr. G. Mukherji, Sr. Advocate, Assisted by
Mr. S. Acharya, Advocate
for O.P. No.2
Ms. S. Pasayat, Advocate
for O.P. No.3
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE
BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 12.09.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.
2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 17.05.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada in I.C.C. Case No.04 of 2018.
3. The background facts of the case are that the Petitioner, being the Complainant, initiated a complaint complaint case before the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada, registered as I.C.C. No.04 of 2018 against Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3. It was alleged that the Petitioner, acting as attorney on behalf of his client, visited the Office of the Tahasildar between 11.30 a.m. and 12.00 noon to ascertain the CRLMC No. 2089 of 2022 20 Page 1 of 12 progress in Mutation Case No.0185 of 2017. According to the Petitioner, though he had filed his Vakalatnama in the said case, upon verification he discovered that the same was not available in the case record. When the grievance grievance was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.2, the then Tahasildar, Gunupur, she became annoyed and allegedly misbehaved with the Petitioner. It is stated that the Petitioner politely reiterated that the Vakalatnama had been duly filed along with the Mutation Case, but the same was missing from the record. Opposite Party No.2 thereafter called Opposite Party No.3, the dealing assistant, to verify the position and, being further annoyed, threatened to call the police against the Petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by such conduct of the Tahasildar and the staff, the Petitioner instituted the said complaint. The learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur, after following due procedure and examining witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., passed the impugned order directing the Petitioner to obtain sanction on the ground that the allegations prima facie appeared to have a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duties by the accused persons. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur, has impugned the same in the present application.
4. Mr. Riaz, learned counsel for the Petitioner, inter alia, contended that the necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is a matter to be examined during the course of trial. According to him,, the burden lies on the Complainant to establish that the accused persons acted in discharge of their official duties and that there existed no nexus between the alleged acts and such official duties. It was thus urged that at the very threshold, while taking ta CRLMC No. 2089 of 2022 20 Page 2 of 12 cognizance of the offences, the learned court ought not to have insisted upon production of sanction. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision in the matter of Inspector of Police and Another another reported nother vs. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and another, in (2015) 13 Supreme Court Cases 87.
875. Per contra, Mr. G. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, submitted that the impugned order does not warrant interference. It was contended that even on the Petitioner's Petitioner's own showing, the grievance arose in the context of the Tahasildar and her staff acting in the course of their official functions. The Petitioner's allegation that the Vakalatnama filed in the Mutation Case was not found in the record could have been addressed essed through appropriate official channels rather than by directly questioning the Tahasildar. As is evident from the pleadings, the Tahasildar, upon receiving the grievance, called upon the dealing assistant to verify the record and thus acted strictly within ithin the scope of her official duties. Therefore, the actions complained of bear a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty, attracting the bar under Section 197 Cr.P.C., and consequently sanction was rightly insisted upon by the learned S.D.J.M. S.D.J.M.
6. Mr. Dash, learned learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned S.D.J.M. rightly directed the Petitioner to produce sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It was contended that the materials on record unmistakably reveal that the alleged acts were committed by the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 in the course of their official functions. When the Petitioner raised his grievance regarding the non-availability non availability of the CRLMC No. 2089 of 2022 20 Page 3 of 12 Vakalatnama in the mutation record, the Tahasildar called upon the dealing assistant to verify the position, which was an action integrally connected with the discharge of her official duties. The alleged misbehaviour or threats, if any, also arose in that context and cannot be delinked from the official functions being being performed at the relevant time. It was further argued that Section 197 Cr.P.C. acts as a safeguard for public servants to ensure that they are not subjected to vexatious prosecution for acts reasonably connected with their official duty, even if such acts acts are alleged to have been in excess of authority. Finally, he prayed that the learned Magistrate having rightly appreciated the law, the impugned order calls for no interference.
7. In the decision relied upon by the Petitioner, Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"10.. Public servants have, in fact, been treated as a special category under Section 197 CrPC, to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution. Such protection from harassment is given in public interest; the same cannot e be treated as a shield to protect corrupt officials. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, at para 74, it has been held that the provisions dealing with Section 197 CrPC must be construed in such a manner as to advance the cause of honesty, justice and good governance. To quote: (SCC pp. 101-02) 101
74. Public servants are treated as a special class of persons enjoying the said protection so that they can perform their duties without fear and favour and without threats of malicious malicious prosecution. However, the said protection against malicious prosecution which was extended in public interest cannot become a shield to protect corrupt officials. These provisions being CRLMC No. 2089 of 2022 20 Page 4 of 12 exceptions to the equality provision of Article 14 are analogous to the provisions of protective analogous discrimination and these protections must be construed very narrowly. These procedural provisions relating to sanction must be construed in such a manner as to advance the causes of honesty and justice and good governance as opposed to escalation of corruption."
11.. The alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their official duty. Their official duty is not to fabricate records or permit evasion of payment of duty and cause loss to the Revenue. Unfortunately, the High Court missed these crucial aspects. The learned Magistrate has correctly taken the view that if at all the said view of sanction is to be considered, it could be done at the stage of trial only. ×××
28.. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is set out hereinbelow for convenience:
197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.-(1) servants.
When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is Accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognisance of such offence except with wi the previous sanction-
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government.
Government ×××
30. A careful reading of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unequivocally unequivocally delineates a statutory bar on the Court's jurisdiction to take cognisance of CRLMC No. 2089 of 2022 20 Page 5 of 12 offences alleged against public servants, save without the prior sanction of the appropriate government. The essential precondition for the applicability of this provision is that the alleged offence must have been committed by the public servant while acting in the discharge of, or purported discharge of, their official duties. The protective mantle of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, is not absolute; it i does not extend to acts that are manifestly beyond the scope of official duty or wholly unconnected thereto. Acts bereft of any reasonable nexus to official functions fall outside the ambit of this safeguard and do not attract the bar imposed Under Section Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Procedure."
8. The Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties on the other hand relied upon the decision in the matter of G.C. Manjunath and s. Seetaram reported in MANU/SC/0437/2025, others vs. MANU/SC/0437/2025 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
follows:
"33.. This Court in Amod Kumar Kanth v. Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy, MANU/SC/0514/2023: (2023) 16 SCC 239 held that the State performs its obligations through its officers/public servants and every function performed by a public servant is ultimately aimed at achieving public welfare. Often, their roles involve a degree of discretion. But the exercise of such discretion cannot be separated from the circumstances and timing in which it is exercised exercised or, in cases of omission, when the omission occurs. In such circumstances, the courts must address, whether the officer was acting in the discharge of official duties. It was observed that even when an officer acts under the purported exercise of official official powers, they are entitled to protection Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This protection exists for a valid reason so that the public servants can perform their duties fearlessly, without constant apprehension of legal action, ass long as they act in good faith. While Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not explicitly mention the requirement of good faith, such a condition CRLMC No. 2089 of 2022 20 Page 6 of 12 is implied and is expressly included in several other statutes that offer protection to public servants from civil and criminal liability.
liability ×××
35.. Recently, this Court in Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta, MANU/SC/1329/2024: 2024:IN5C:967 dealt with the object and purpose of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows:
22.... the object and purpose of the said provision is to protect officers and officials of the State from unjustified criminal prosecution while they discharge their duties within the scope and ambit of their powers entrusted to them. A reading of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would indicate that there is a bar for a Court to take cognisance of such offences which are mentioned in the said provision except with the previous sanction of the appropriate government when the allegations are made against, against, inter alia, a public servant. There is no doubt that in the instant case the Appellant herein was a public servant but the question is, whether, while discharging her duty as a public servant on the relevant date, there was any excess in the discharge of the said duty which did not require the first Respondent herein to take a prior sanction for prosecuting the Appellant herein. In this regard, the salient words which are relevant Under Sub-section section (1) of Section 197 are "is Accused of any offence alleged alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction". Therefore, for the purpose of application of Section 197, a sine quaa non is that the public servant is Accused of any offence which had been committed by him in "discharge of his official duty. The said expression would clearly indicate that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply to a case if a public ic servant is Accused of any offence which is de hors or not connected to the discharge of his or her official duty.CRLMC No. 2089 of 2022 20 Page 7 of 12
36.. In light of the aforesaid judgments, the guiding principle governing the necessity of prior sanction stands well crystallised. The pivotal pivotal inquiry is whether the impugned act is reasonably connected to the discharge of official duty. If the act is wholly unconnected or manifestly devoid of any nexus to the official functions of the public servant, the requirement of sanction is obviated. Conversely, where there exists even a reasonable link between the act complained of and the official duties of the public servant, the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 170 of the Police Act is attracted. In such uch cases, prior sanction assumes the character of a sine qua non, regardless of whether the public servant exceeded the scope of authority or acted improperly while discharging his duty.
×××
40.. In the present case, it is evident that the actions attributed ed to the Accused persons emanate from the discharge of their official duties, specifically in connection with the investigation of criminal cases pending against the complainant. As previously observed, a mere excess or overreach in the performance of official icial duty does not, by itself, disentitle a public servant from the statutory protection mandated by law. The safeguard of obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority, as envisaged Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 170 of the Police Act cannot be rendered nugatory merely because the acts alleged may have exceeded the strict bounds of official duty. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate erred in taking cognisance of the alleged offences against the Accused persons without the requisite sanction for prosecution in the instant case. The absence of the necessary sanction vitiates the very initiation of criminal proceedings against the Accused Accus persons."
CRLMC No. 2089 of 2022 20 Page 8 of 129. In the given circumstances, it is profitable to reproduce the relevant provision enumerated under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C as under:-
197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.--(1) servants When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)]--
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government:
[Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government"
occurring therein, the expression "Central Government"
were substituted.] Explanation.--For Explanation. For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, 3[section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section section 376DB] or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).CRLMC No. 2089 of 2022 20 Page 9 of 12
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section sub section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section sub section will apply as if for the expression "Central Government" occurring therein, the expression "State Government" were substituted.
substituted (3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section sub (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3B) Notwithstanding anything to thethe contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 (43 of 1991), receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued is under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.] (4) The Central Government Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public CRLMC No. 2089 of 2022 20 Page 10 of 12 servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court beforee which the trial is to be held.
10. The said provision creates a bar on the court from taking cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, except with the previous previous sanction of the competent authority. The test laid down by judicial precedents is whether the act complained of has a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty, even if the act is alleged to have been in excess of or in dereliction of such duty. If the answer is in the affirmative, sanction becomes a condition precedent before cognizance can be taken.
11. Having regard to the facts of the present case, as revealed from the records, the Petitioner, a practicing Advocate, had visited the Office of the Tahasildar and on verification found that the Vakalatnama filed by him was not appended to the mutation record. Upon the grievance being brought to the notice of the Tahasildar, the latter called the dealing assistant to ascertain the correctness of the he grievance. Such action, on the face of it, was in due discharge of official duty, as expected from a public servant. The further allegation that the Tahasildar became annoyed and threatened to call the Police also cannot be viewed in isolation, inasmuch as the same was in the context of maintaining order and authority within the office while discharging official functions. Thus, the acts complained of bear a close and reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty.
CRLMC No. 2089 of 2022 20 Page 11 of 1212. Consequently, this Court is of the the considered view that the learned S.D.J.M. rightly insisted on sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further. The impugned order dated 17.05.2022 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Cr. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed as being devoid of merit.
(Chittaranjan 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 2022 20 Page 12 of 12