RABINDRANATH SATPATHY Vs. SINA SETHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner assails the order dated 19-1-2004 passed in I. C. C. No. 28/2002 wherein the learned S. D. J. M., Chhatrapur has taken cognisance of the offences under Sections'218/294, I. P. C. and under Ss. 3(1), (ix), (x), (m), 3(2), (vi), (vii) and 4 of the S. C. and S. P. (P. A.) Act, 1989 and issued process against the petitioner.

(2.) It is alleged that on 11-10-2002 while the complainant-opposite party was engaged in grazing his cattle, he was abused and assaulted by some of his villagers. Petitioner was the Officer-in-charge of Hinjili Police Station at the relevant time. In order to lodge complaint, the complainant went to Hinjili P. S. and met the petitioner. The petitioner, however, did not entertain the complaint, on the contrary, complainant (opp. party), was arrested and forwarded to the Court and on the basis of which, G. R. Case No. 376/2002 was initiated. After release, the complainant-opp. party filed a complaint case against the petitioner and four others and the learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry under S. 202, Cr. P. C. took cognizance of the offences as aforesaid. The petitioner challenges the said order on the ground that he being a public servant cannot be prosecuted without a valid sanction.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner was the Officer-in-Charge, Hinjili P. S. and as such, he was a public servant at the relevant time. Petitioner is entitled to the protection under S. 197, Cr. P. C. provided, it is found that he was engaged in the performance of his official duties and the act or omission alleged against him has any reasonable nexus with discharge of his duty. It is well settled in law that in order to extend the protection given to the public servant under S. 197, Cr. P. C, it is to be seen as to whether the alleged act committed by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty. At the same time, if the public servant is under any legal obligation to do certain act and he omitted or neglected to do the same, he cannot claim the privilege. In this regard the Apex Court has clarified the position that Section 197, Cr. P. C. needs to be construed strictly while determining its applicability to any act or omission in the course of service. (See (2004) 8 SCC 40 : (2004 Cri LJ 2011) State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew)