Jharkhand High Court

Inder Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 June, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                (2025:JHHC:16701)




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       Cr.M.P. No. 2178 of 2024


          Inder Kumar, aged about 48 years, s/o late Ram Parosh Mahto, r/o
          Vill.-Gaushala Road, P.O.-Ramgarh Cantt., P.S.-Ramgarh Town, Dist.-
          Ramgarh, Jharkhand; Presently residing at D.T.O., Campus, Chatra,
          P.O. & P.S.-Chatra Town, Dist.-Chatra, Jharkhand
                                                ....              Petitioner
                                     Versus
          The State of Jharkhand
                                                ....               Opp. Parties

                                     PRESENT

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                      .....

      For the Petitioner        : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
      For the State             : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Spl. P.P.
                                       .....
By the Court:-

        1.      Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with a

prayer to set aside the order dated 09.05.2024 passed in Criminal

Revision No. 140 of 2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is an accused of

Birni P.S. Case No. 145 of 2016. The informant of that case

submitted a written report to the police alleging therein that on

24.10.2016 the informant being a journalist went to the office of the

petitioner, who was posted as block development officer and

asked him about the wrong doings that was made in the process

of digging a pond in a panchayat and asked for the statement of

the petitioner in respect of the same. The petitioner intentionally

(2025:JHHC:16701)

insulted and intimidated the informant, who is a member of

Scheduled Caste and abused him by taking his caste name in a

place within public view and also committed acts which is

derogatory to human dignity by caching hold of the collar of the

shirt of the informant, assaulting him and criminally intimated

him.

4. On the basis of the written report lodged by the informant, the

said Birni P.S. Case No. 145 of 2016 was registered involving the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian

Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (iii) (x) of the Scheduled

Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

5. After investigation of the case, police submitted charge sheet

finding the allegation made under Section 506 of Indian Penal

Code having been made out against the petitioner and the learned

Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences but the petitioner

did not think it fit for reasons best known to him to annex the

certified copy of the order by which the learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih has taken cognizance of the offences

against the petitioner.

6. The petitioner filed a petition to stop the proceeding of the case

invoking the jurisdiction of the trial court under Section 258 of

Cr.P.C. on the ground that in order to prosecute the petitioner

though I.O. was required to obtain sanction of the State

Government under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. but the said sanction has

not been obtained and the materials in the record is insufficient to

(2025:JHHC:16701)

constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian

Penal Code.

7. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih considered that

the allegations made against the petitioner are unconnected with

his duty and the act alleged in the FIR cannot be considered as an

act done in discharge of official duty; as the offence alleged is not

intrinsically connected or is related to the performance of the

official duty of the accused nor there is any reasonable connection

between the acts alleged in the FIR, in the discharge of duty of the

petitioner as a block development officer nor it can be said that

the petitioner has committed the offences as alleged in the FIR

under the colour of the office held by him and went on to hold

that the alleged act is no way connected with the discharge of the

duty of the petitioner and vide order dated 31.07.2023 rejected the

prayer to stop the proceedings of the criminal case, under Section

258 of Cr.P.C..

8. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih dated 31.07.2023, the petitioner filed

Criminal Revision No. 140 of 2023 but the learned Sessions Judge,

Giridih vide the impugned order dated 09.05.2024, considering

the facts of the case, found prima facie case for the offence

punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code against the

petitioner and went on to hold that in this case, the power to stop

the criminal proceeding under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. cannot be

exercised and also found that the acts alleged in the FIR is no way

(2025:JHHC:16701)

connected to the official duty of the petitioner and cannot be

considered to be an act done or purportedly to be done in

discharge of the official duty and dismissed the criminal revision.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by

relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

in the case of D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain reported in

(2020) 7 SCC 695, paragraph no. 74 of which reads as under :-

"74. It is well settled that an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable to quash proceedings which are ex facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in abuse of process of court. If, on the face of the complaint, the act alleged appears to have a reasonable relationship with official duty, where the criminal proceeding is apparently prompted by mala fides and instituted with ulterior motive, power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code would have to be exercised to quash the proceedings, to prevent abuse of process of court."

and submits that as on the face of the complaint, the acts of the

petitioner appears to have a reasonable relationship with the

official duty of the petitioner.

10. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

before institution of this case, the petitioner lodged FIR, basing

upon which Birni P.S. Case No. 144 of 2016 has been registered, in

which the informant of this case is the accused person. Hence, it is

submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous

petition be allowed.

11. Learned Special Pubic Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently

opposes the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition

and submits that as has rightly been reiterated in the case of D.

(2025:JHHC:16701)

Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain (supra) by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India, that only on the face of the complaint, it

is to be seen, whether an act alleged, appears to have a reasonable

relationship with the official duty. It is next submitted by learned

Spl. P.P. that the block development officer is an administrative

post holder in the block, being responsible for implementing and

seeing various development programme and schemes but the

block development officer has got nothing to do with law-and-

order situation in the locality or to use physical force against

anybody and the same is the duty of the police concerned. It is

further submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that in this case the

allegation against the petitioner is of intentionally insulting or

intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of schedule caste

in a place within public view and also criminally intimidated him;

this by no stretch of imagination can be stated to be connected

with the official duty of the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted

that there is absolutely no illegality in the order dated 09.05.2024

passed in Criminal Revision No. 140 of 2023 by the learned

Sessions Judge, Giridih. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal

miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

12. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going

through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to

mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of

(2025:JHHC:16701)

Orissa vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew reported in (2004) 8 SCC 40,

paragraph no. 7 of which reads as under:-

"7. The protection given under Section 197 is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants. The policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in the discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause, and if sanction is granted, to confer on the Government, if they choose to exercise it, complete control of the prosecution. This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of the protection. The question is not as to the nature of the offence such as whether the alleged offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon the offender being a public servant, but whether it was committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge of his official capacity. Before Section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the act, because the official act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which is important and the protection of this section is available if the act falls within the scope and range of his official duty."(emphasis supplied)

in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has interpreted

Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure by holding that the

protection under the said provision of law does not extend its

protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant

while in service. The scope of operation of the said provision of

(2025:JHHC:16701)

law is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by

a public servant in discharge of official duty.

13. As has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

paragraph no. 74 in the case of D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer

Hussain (supra) whether or not the act or omission done by a

public servant has any connection with his official duty is to be

seen on the face of the complaint itself. Obviously, the veracity of

the complaint cannot be tested by the High Court in exercise of

the power under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 and the same is to

be considered to be true in its entirety, for the purpose of

exercising the power under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023.

14. Keeping this settled principle of law in mind, this Court after

examining the facts of the case that the petitioner criminally

intimidated the informant, is of the considered view that the Block