Madhusudan Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2796 Jhar

                                        1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr.M.P. No. 2445 of 2017

1. Madhusudan Pandey
2. Rajkishore OJha @ S.B. Ojha                       ...... Petitioners
                            Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Mikhail Tigga                                  ...... Opposite Parties
                    ---------

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                           ---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the State       : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : None

6/Dated: 21/07/2022

Though O.P. No. 2 has put his appearance by filing vakalatnama and

name of the learned advocate on behalf of O.P. No. 2 is appearing but today on

repeated calls nobody appeared on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 accordingly, this matter

is being heard on merit.

2. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.

S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing entire

criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 08.02.2016 in connection

with Jugsalai (Bagbera) P.S. Case No. 282 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 2965 of

2015, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur or

its successor court.

4. Informant has lodged F.I.R. alleging therein that on 08.09.2015 at about

16.30 hours when he was going to his residence after attending his duties and

reached in front of the RPF Gate, then RPF Hawaldar, Madhusudan Pandey dashed

him by cycle. When the informant told the accused-Madhusudan Pandey that how he

was riding the cycle and he should see before riding. On this, the informant was

taken to R.P.F. office and assaulted by the petitioners along with other police

personnel, as a result of which the informant sustained serious injuries below his eyes

and chest. It is further alleged that when the informant told that he is Rail Police

Inspector, Tata Nagar then these RPF personnel told that he is looking like Scheduled

Caste/Scheduled Tribe. However, when the GRP Police personnel heard about the

matter, they saved the informant from further assault.

5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset fairly

submits that petitioner no. 1 was posted as Hawaldar whereas the petitioner no. 2

was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector of the RPF post at Tata Nagar Railway Station.

He further submits that altercation took place between R.P.F. personnel and G.R.P.,

Tata Railway Station. He further submits that there are case and counter case

between the parties. He further submits that even the police officials are protected

under section 197 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that in the light of section 20 of

the Railway Protection Force Act, restriction and protection have been provided. He

further submits that section 20 of the Railway Protection Force Act has been

considered by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of "Naresh Mohan Prasad

and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another" reported in 2000 Criminal Law

Journal 424 and in the case of "D.S. Ghuria and Another Vs. N. Singh"

reported in 1970 Criminal Law Journal 642 . On these grounds, learned counsel

for the petitioners submits that entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed.

6. Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no

illegality in the cognizance order.

7. The Court has perused the materials on record and finds that F.I.R. was

lodged under several sections of I.P.C. including under Schedule Caste and Schedule

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but the learned court below has not taken

cognizance under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act. Prima facie it suggests that the allegation made in F.I.R. is concocted with regard

to ingredient of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Section 20 of the Railway Protection Force Act provides as under:-

"20. Protection of acts of members of the Force:-

(1)xxxxxxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxxxxxxx (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any legal proceeding, whether civil or criminal which may lawfully be brought against any member of the Force for anything done or intended to be done under the powers conferred by, or in pursuance of, any provision of this Act or the rules thereunder shall be commenced within three months after the act complained of shall have been committed and not otherwise: and notice in writing of such proceeding and of the cause thereof shall be given to the person concerned and his superior officer at least one month before the commencement of such proceeding. (emphasis

supplied."

8. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by the Patna High

Court in the case of Naresh Mohan Prasad (supra) and in the case of D.S. Ghuria

(supra). The petitioners were discharging their official duties which is not denied by

the learned counsel for the State and they are entitled of protection under Section 197

Cr.P.C. Reference may be made to the case of "D. Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer

Hussain" reported in (2020) 7 SCC 695. Paragraph nos. 30 and 49 of the said

judgment is quoted here-in-below:

"30. The object of sanction for prosecution, whether under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, is to protect a public servant/police officer discharging official duties and functions from harassment by initiation of frivolous retaliatory criminal proceedings. As held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari : (AIR p. 48, para

15) "15. ... Public servants have to be protected from harassment in the discharge of official duties while ordinary citizens not so engaged do not require this safeguard.....

There is no question of any discrimination between one person and another in the matter of taking proceedings against a public servant for an act done or purporting to be done by the public servant in the discharge of his official duties. No one can take such proceedings without such sanction."

49. Citing the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Mr Poovayya argued that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly prompted by mala fides and instituted with the ulterior motive of vengeance due to private or personal grudge, power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ought to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court and/or to secure the ends of justice."

9. As a cumulative effects of the discussions made here-in-above, reasons

and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated

08.02.2016 in connection with Jugsalai (Bagbera) P.S. Case No. 282 of 2015,

corresponding to G.R. No. 2965 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur or its successor court, are hereby quashed.

10. Cr.M.P. No. 2445 of 2017 stands allowed and disposed of. Pending

interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. Interim order dated

09.05.2018 is vacated.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/