LALIT MOHAN PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDERS dated 06.07.2011 taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 387/34 of the IPC and order dated 30.04.2012 framing charge for the said offence passed by the learned SDJM, Gunpur in G.R. Case No. 11 of 2011 have been challenged in this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE petitioners are both A.S.I. of Police, who have been implicated in the aforesaid G.R. Case, arising out of Gunupur P.S. Case No. 8 of 2011, registered on the basis of FIR dated 17.01.2011 lodged by the Sub -Inspector of Police of Rayagada Police Station. The prosecution case is that the informant in course of his investigation of Rayagada P.S. Case No. 6 dated 13.01.2011 under Sections 364/395 of the IPC came across one Dhanapati Jani, an accused in the said case, in the afternoon of 16.01.2011 while the said accused was coming to Rayagada n a Bolero vehicle along with some other co -accused persons. The informant detained the said accused person at Ram Mandir Square at Rayagada. On his interrogation and search he recovered the stolen cash of Rs. 9,00,500/ - from accused Dhanapati Jani along with his mobile phone. In course of interrogation, the said accused stated that he was going to Ramnaguda side to give Rs. 6,00,000/ - to one Simanchal Majhi. There was conversation with Simanchal over telephone who told that he was coming to Rayagada by a hired Indica Car. The informant there from proceeded to Ramnaguda side and on the highway near Kolnara, he detected the Indica Car and detained the same and co -accused -Simanchal Majhi was nabbed. Besides Simanchal Majhi the present two petitioners were also found sitting in the Indica Car along with Home Guard, Jayadev Korkaria. On interrogation Simanchal Majhi stated that while he was coming to Rayagada on that day at about 2.00 P.M. at Ramnaguda Check Gate his vehicle was stopped ,by the two petitioners, A.S.ls of Police, who came to know that he (Simanchal Majhi) along with others looted about Rs. 20,00,000/ - and therefore, the two petitioners demanded from him Rs. 6,00,000/ - as their share with threats that if not paid he would be booked in criminal case and harassed like anything and would also face dire consequences. Simanchal Majhi stated to them that he did not have the cash with him at that time which was with Dhanapati Jani (co -accused) at Rayagada and he offered to pay the petitioners at Rayagada if he is taken to that place. The petitioners, therefore, accompanied him in the very same Indica Car and proceeded to Rayagada to collect the amount demanded by them. It is also stated in the FIR that the driver of the Indica Car and Home Guard also corroborated the statement of Simanchal Majhi. The informant therefore drew up the FIR, on the basis of which Gunupur P.S. Case No.8 of 2011 was registered against the present petitioners. After investigation charge -sheet was submitted against the present petitioners under Section 387/34 of the IPC for which cognizance was taken by the learned SDJM and Charge was also framed against the petitioners for the very, same offence.

(3.) SECTION 197, Cr.P.C., is meant for providing protection to public servants for anything done in exercise or purported exercise of their official duty from false, vexatious and malicious prosecution. To avail the protection it must be shown that the act complained of was done in discharge of official duty of the public servant though it may be in excess of discharge of such duty. The true test is that the act or occurrence complained of must have a nexus with the discharge of the public duty. It has been held in the case of Raj 2003 (I) OLR 284 Kishore Swain and Another v. Smt. Ranjan Moharana; (2003) 24 OCR 535 that sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. for initiation of a prosecution should be insisted upon when it is found that nexus between the discharge of the public duty and the offending act or the omission must be inseparable.