Anil Kumar JhaversusThe State Of Bihar, Through Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Bihar, Patna and Anr

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23310 of 2016

      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-711 Year-2008 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Banka
     ======================================================
     Anil Kumar Jha son of Late Guneshwar Jha, Presently posted as Forest Range
     Officer at Working Plan Forest Division, Patna and residing at Flat No. 307,
     Vrindavan Garden Apartment, Ashiana Digha Road, Police Station- Shastri
     Nagar in the town and district of Patna


                                                                       ... ... Petitioner
                                          Versus
1.   The State Of Bihar, Through Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Bihar,
     Patna
2.   Shyam Mandal, Son of Late Kailash Mandal, Resident of village- Bhelai,
     P.S.- Banka, District- Banka


                                                               ... ... Opposite Parties
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                     Mr. Ranjit Kumar Singh, Advocate
     For the State           :       Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
     For the O.P. No.2       :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate
                                     Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
                            ORAL JUDGMENT


      Date : 23-03-2026

                     The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been

      preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.PC for setting

      aside the impugned order dated 23.08.2014 passed by learned

      S.D.J.M., Banka in Complaint Case No. C-711 of 2008,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2016 dt.23-03-2026
                                           2/16




         whereby learned S.D.J.M., Banka has issued summons against

         the petitioner holding that there is sufficient material to issue

         summons against him.

                                  Factual Background

                      2. The Complaint Case bearing No. C-711 of 2008 has

         been filed by one Shyam Mandal against the petitioner and other

         four accused persons alleging that the Complainant/Shyam

         Mandal is a Clerk in Amapur Construction Limited whose

         Director/Chairman is Sahdeo Kanodia. The work of the said

         company is taken care of by Mr. Anand Kanodia who is son of

         Sahdeo Kanaudia. He does business by name of “Anand

         Traders” and even mobile has been taken in the name of Anand

         Traders. The company has several tractors to do its business.

                      3. It     is further alleged that on 18.05.2008,

         stone/Moram was being transported from Laxmikant Singh,

         who is contractor of Mining Department. There was valid

         challan and the place of occurrence was outside the forest range.

         On the date of occurrence, the complainant was coming with a

         tractor with Moram/stone. The tractor was being driven by the

         driver. The co-accused, Mukesh Yadav and they were coming to

         the place of work situated at Chakkadih. When the complainant

         along with the tractor reached near village-Ramaniya, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2016 dt.23-03-2026
                                           3/16




         accused persons, including the petitioner, intercepted the tractor

         and asked for the documents. All the relevant and valid

         documents were shown to them. But the accused-petitioner got

         the complainant and the driver down from the tractor and

         abused them and even assaulted them and also asked them that

         to send Rs.25,000/- from his owner, failing which he will have

         to bear heavy cost. It is also alleged that even one Reliance

         Mobile was taken from his pocket.

                      4. It further transpires that the complaint was filed on

         20.05.2008 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

         Banka and the same was transferred to the Court of learned

         S.D.J.M., Banka vide order dated 29.05.2008 under Section 192

         Cr.PC. In other words, deemed cognizance of offence was taken

         on 29.05.2008 when the complaint was transferred by learned

         C.J.M. to learned S.D.J.M. under Section 192 Cr.PC. After

         receipt of the complaint, learned S.D.J.M., conducted pre-

         summoning inquiry by examining the complainant and one

         witness, Ajay Kumar and vide the impugned order, issued

         summons against the petitioner finding sufficient material

         against him.

                              Submissions of the Parties

                      5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2016 dt.23-03-2026
                                           4/16




         APP for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

                      6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

         petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

         case. He further submits that the petitioner was a Range Officer

         in the Forest Department and admittedly as per the compliant

         itself, the occurrence had taken place in course of discharge of

         his official duty by the petitioner and hence, no cognizance can

         be taken or summons can be issued against the petitioner, unless

         there is sanction obtained from the competent authority. But it

         transpires from the Trial Court Record that no sanction has been

         obtained by the complainant from any competent authority.

         Section 73 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 clearly provides that

         all the Forest Officers shall be deemed to be Public Servant

         within the meaning of Indian Penal Code and as per Section 197

         Cr.PC, any Court is debarred from taking cognizance of any

         offence except with previous sanction against the public servant.

         But no such sanction has been applied for by the complainant or

         granted by any competent authority. Hence, the whole

         proceeding is vitiated in which summons has been issued

         against the petitioner.

                      7. He also submits that the present complaint against

         the petitioner has been prompted by malafide. Just two days
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2016 dt.23-03-2026
                                           5/16




         prior to the complaint lodged by the complainant, the petitioner

         had filed criminal complaint bearing Complaint Case No. C-3-

         71 of 2008 against him for illegal mining in the forest area on

         18.05.2008 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

         Banka, on account of which even seized articles have been

         confiscated in Confiscation Case No. 3 of 08-09 by competent

         authority.

                      8. However, learned APP for the State and learned

         counsel for the complainant vehemently defend the impugned

         order submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the

         impugned order and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

                              Extent and Scope of Section 482 Cr.PC

                      9. Before I proceed to consider the rival submissions

         of the parties, it would be pertinent to see the scope and ambit of

         Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

                      10. Section 482 Cr.PC saves inherent power of High

         Court and it reads as follows:-

                           “482. Saving of inherent powers of High
               Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or
               affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such
               orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order
               under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any
               Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

                      11. State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Suppl

         (1) SCC 335, is the celebrated judgment on the scope and extent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2016 dt.23-03-2026
                                           6/16




         of the jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC, still

         holding the field and being followed and relied upon by all

         Courts including the Apex Court.

                      12.     Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal case

         (supra) held as follows:-

                     “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
               various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
               XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
               in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
               extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
               powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
               extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
               categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
               power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
               process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
               justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
               precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
               inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
               exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
               power should be exercised.
                         (1) Where the allegations made in the first
               information report or the complaint, even if they are taken
               at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
               prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
               against the accused.
                     (2) Where the allegations in the first information
               report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
               do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
               investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
               the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
               purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
                       (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
               the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
               of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence
               and make out a case against the accused.
                         (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
               constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
               cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
               police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
               contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2016 dt.23-03-2026
                                           7/16




                         (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
               complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
               basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
               conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
               against the accused.
                      (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
               any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
               (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
               institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
               where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
               concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
               grievance of the aggrieved party.
                    (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
               attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
               maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
               vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him
               due to private and personal grudge.
                     103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that
               the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
               exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that
               too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be
               justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability
               or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
               FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent
               powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court
               to act according to its whim or caprice.”
                                                        (Emphasis Supplied)
                         13.      In     Smt.      Nagawwa       Vs.   Veeranna

         Shivalingappa Konujalgi [(1976) 3 SCC 736], while

         considering the scope of Sections 202 and 204 of Cr.PC.,

         Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines and

         grounds on which proceeding would be quashed.

                 “(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the
               statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the
               same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case
               against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the
               essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against
               the accused;
                   (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are
               patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2016 dt.23-03-2026
                                           8/16




               prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is
               sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
                  (3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in
               issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been
               based either on no evidence or on materials which are
               wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and
                 (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal
               defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a
               complaint by legally competent authority and the like.”

                                                        (Emphasis Supplied)
                      14. In Pepsi Foods Limited & Anr. Vs. Special

         Judicial Magistrate & Ors., [(1998) 5 SCC 749], Hon’ble

         Supreme Court has held as follows:

               “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a
               serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a
               matter of course…….. ”
                                                        (Emphasis Supplied)

                      Extent and scope of Section 197 Cr.PC

                      15. Section 197 Cr.PC reads as follows:

                    “197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.-
               (1) 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 of such offence
               except with 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:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2016 dt.23-03-2026
                                           9/16




                       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 the removal of doubts it is
               hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case
               of a public servant 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, section 376,
               section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section
               376D, section 376DA, section 376DB,] [Inserted by
               Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013] or section 509 of
               the Indian Penal Code(45 of 1860).
                    …………………………………”

                      16. The object and purpose underlying this Section is

         to afford protection to public servants against frivolous,

         vexatious or false prosecution for offences alleged to have been

         committed by them while acting or purporting to act in the

         discharge of their official duty. The larger interest of efficiency

         of State administration demands that public servants should be

         free to perform their official duty fearlessly and undeterred by

         apprehension of their possible prosecution at the instance of

         private parties to whom annoyance or injury may have been

         caused by their legitimate acts done in the discharge of their

         official duty. This Section is designed to facilitate effective and

         unhampered performance of their official duty by public

         servants by providing for scrutiny into the allegations of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2016 dt.23-03-2026
                                           10/16




         commission of offence by them by their superior authorities and

         prior sanction for their prosecution as a condition precedent to

         the cognizance of the cases against them by the Courts. In this

         regard, the following judicial precedents may be referred to:

                (i) Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Mishra
                       (1970) 2 SCC 56
                (ii) Pukhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan
                       (1973) 2 SCC 701
                (iii) Lakshmansingh Himatsingh Vaghela (Dr) Vs.
                      Naresh Kumar Chandrashanker Jah
                       (1990) 4 SCC 169
                (iv) Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. U.O.I.
                       (2005) 8 SCC 202
                (v) Choudhury Parveen Sultana Vs. State of W.B.,
                       (2009) 3 SCC 398
                (vi) State of Bihar Vs. Rajmangal Ram
                       (2014) 11 SCC 388

                      17. Explaining the meaning and scope of Section 197

         Cr.PC, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pukhraj Vs. State of

         Rajasthan, (1973) 2 SCC 701 has held that what is necessary is

         that the offence must be in respect of an act done or purported to

         be done in the discharge of an official duty. It does not apply to

         acts done purely in a private capacity by a public servant.

                      18. Interpreting the meaning of the expression

         “official duty”, Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs.

         Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40 has held that the

         official duty implies the Act or omission done by the public

         servant in course of his service and it has been done in discharge
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2016 dt.23-03-2026
                                           11/16




         of his duty. It has further held that Section 197 Cr.PC 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

         Section is restricted to only those Acts or omissions which are

         done by a public servant in discharge of his official duty.

                      19. In Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli Vs. State

         of Bombay, (1954) 2 SCC 992, Hon’ble Supreme Court has

         held if Section 197 Cr.PC is construed too narrowly, it can never

         be applied, for of course it is no part of an official's duty to

         commit an offence and never can be. But it is not the duty we

         have to examine so much as the act, because an official act can

         be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in

         dereliction of it.

                      20. In P. Arulswami Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1967

         SC 776, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is the quality

         of the Act that is important and if it falls within the scope and

         range of his official duties, the protection contemplated by

         Section 197 Cr.PC would be attracted. But, if the Act is totally

         unconnected with the official duty, there can be no protection. It

         is only when it is either within the scope of the official duty or

         in excess of it that the protection is claimable.

                      21. In B. Saha Vs. M.S. Kochar, (1979) 4 SCC 177,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2016 dt.23-03-2026
                                           12/16




         Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that sine qua non for the

         applicability of section 197 Cr.PC is that the offence charged

         must be one which has been committed by the public servant

         either in his official capacity or under colour of the office held

         by him.

                      22. In Om Prakash Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2012)

         12 SCC 72, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the true test

         as to whether a public servant was acting or purporting to act in

         discharge of his duties would be whether the act complained of

         was directly connected with his official duties or it was done in

         the discharge of his official duties or it was so integrally

         connected with or attached to his office as to be inseparable

         from it. It has been further held that protection given under

         Section 197 Cr.PC 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.

                      23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Devaraja Vs.

         Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695 has held that to

         decide whether sanction is necessary, the test is whether the act

         is totally unconnected with official duty or whether there is a

         reasonable connection with the official duty. In the case of an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2016 dt.23-03-2026
                                           13/16




         act of a policeman or any other public servant unconnected with

         the official duty there can be no question of sanction. Hon’ble

         Apex Court further held that if the act alleged in a complaint

         purported to be filed against the public servant is reasonably

         connected to discharge of his official duty, the cognizance

         thereof cannot be taken unless requisite sanction of the

         appropriate Government is obtained under Section 197 Cr.PC.

                      24. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in para 74

         of D. Devaraja case (supra) that 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.

                      25. It is also relevant to point out that a trial without a

         valid sanction, where one is necessary, is a trial without

         jurisdiction, rendering the criminal proceeding void ab initio. In

         this regard, one may refer to the following judicial precedents:

                 (i) R.R. Chari Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1573
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2016 dt.23-03-2026
                                           14/16




                 (ii) S.N. Bose Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1292
                 (iii) Md. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of A.P., AIR 1979 SC 677
                 (iv) R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay, AIR 1984 SC 684

                                          Present case

                 26. Coming to the case on hand I find that the Petitioner

         Anil Kumar Jha is a Range Officer in the Forest Department and

         the alleged offence has been committed by him undisputedly in

         discharge of his official duty.

                 27. As per Section 73 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, all

         the forest officers are deemed to be public servants within the

         meaning of the Indian Penal Code. I further find that as per

         Section 197 Cr.PC, any Court is debarred from taking

         cognizance of any offence, if the alleged offence is committed

         by the public servants during discharge of his official duty,

         except with previous sanction from the competent authority. But

         undisputedly, there is no such sanction applied for by the

         Complainant, nor is any sanction granted by any competent

         authority. Hence, the Criminal Proceeding arising out of the

         cognizance order dated 29.05.2008 and the summoning order

         dated 23.08.2014 passed against the Petitioner is vitiated, for

         want of any sanction against the Petitioner, who is a public

         servant within the meaning of Section 197 Cr.PC read with

         Section 73 of the Indian Forest Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2016 dt.23-03-2026
                                           15/16




                 28. The Criminal Proceeding against the Petitioner is

         liable to be quashed also in view of the Bhajan Lal case

         (supra), which provides, as amongst other things, that if a

         criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or

         where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior

         motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view

         to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the criminal

         proceeding is liable to be quashed by a High Court under writ

         jurisdiction as well as inherent jurisdiction under Section 482

         Cr.PC. In the case on hand, the Petitioner had undisputedly filed

         criminal complaint against the Complainant/O.P. No.2 herein,

         just two days prior to the present Complaint filed against the

         Petitioner by the O.P. No.2. in the Court of learned C.J.M.,

         Banka for illegal mining in the forest area on 18.05.2008. This

         Complaint bears Complaint No.C-711 of 2008. The articles

         seized in this Complaint had been even confiscated in

         Confiscation Case No.3 of 08-09. As such, the Complaint filed

         by the O.P. No.2 against the Petitioner is clearly prompted by

         mala fide and vengeance.

                 29. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the

         cognizance order dated 29.05.2008, and the summoning order

         dated 23.08.2014 passed by learned Court below in Criminal
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23310 of 2016 dt.23-03-2026
                                                        16/16




                      Complaint No.C-711 of 2008 and the whole proceeding arising

                      out of the same are set aside and quashed qua the Petitioner.



                                                                   (Jitendra Kumar, J.)
ravishankar/-
AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date          31.03.2026
Transmission Date       31.03.2026