[ad_1]
Patna High Court – Orders
Arjun Kumar Bishwas vs The State Of Bihar on 4 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28470 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1180 Year-2022 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Purnia
======================================================
1. Arjun Kumar Bishwas son of Late Nagendra Prasad Biswas Resident of
Village- Circle Officer Banmankhi Block Ps- Banmankhi Dist- Purnea
2. Satyanarayan Sorin son of Late Meghraj Soren Village- Dhamaili Kadam
Tola P.S.- Mirganj Dist- Purnea P/A Revenue karamchari, Circle Officer
Banmankhi Block Ps- Banmankhi Dist- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Md. Ilyas son of Late Alibudh Miyan Village- Majhua Premram P.S.- Sarsi
Dist- Purnea
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 04-08-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the O.P. No.2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State
2. The present application has been preferred against
the order dated 10.01.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Punea in Criminal Revision No. 116 of 2023/C.I.S. No. 116/
2023, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge,
Purnea has rejected the Criminal Revision Application filed by
the petitioners which was preferred challenging the cognizance
taking order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in Complaint Case No. 1180 of 2022
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28470 of 2024(2) dt.04-08-2025
2/9
which is also impugned in the present application.
3. The facts leading to the present application is to the
effect that the complainant, Md. Iliyas has stated that he is a
landless person and the Accused No. 1 to 4 including the
petitioners are government officials while the Accused No. 5 to
14 named in the complaint are private respondents. It is alleged
in the complaint that all the accused persons in connivance with
the government officials i.e., the petitioners have prepared
purcha of homestead land of the complainant and on the basis of
which the accused persons tried to capture the land forcefully
and even assaulted the complainant for which one Sarsi P.S.
Case No. 08 of 2003/GR Case No. 131 of 2003 was lodged. It is
further alleged that the petitioners being the government
officials in collusion of the other accused persons have violated
the order of the learned Collector, Purnea whereby the
construction work being made by the rest of the private accused
persons, was stayed. The complainant has further alleged that he
had informed the Circle Officer, Banmankhi and the S.H.O. of
Sarsi P.S., however, they did not take any action against the
private accused persons and permitted the said accused persons
to construct the pucca house over the said land.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28470 of 2024(2) dt.04-08-2025
3/9
on plain reading of the complaint petition, it would be evident
that the allegations against the petitioners are that they are in
connivance with the private accused persons and have allowed
the construction work over the land over which the complainant
has possession. The learned counsel submits that the Basgit
Purcha was issued in the year 1981-82, 1993-94, 1999-2000 and
2000-2001 while the Petitioner No. 1 has joined Banmankhi
Anchal in the year 2019 and Petitioner No. 2 has joined the
Banmankhi office on 10.07.2021 and for any act of preparing
purcha cannot be saddled with the petitioners. The learned
counsel further submits that allegation that the Petitioner No. 1
did not take any action to the complaint made by the
complainant with regard to construction of the work, it is
submitted that any action being taken by the other co-accused
persons on the basis of a certain document could not have
possibly been stopped by the petitioners. It has next been
submitted that from the averment made in the complaint, it
could at best be inferred that the petitioners had not followed the
orders of the collector and for which no criminal offence would
be made out and therefore none of the offences as alleged under
Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is
made out against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28470 of 2024(2) dt.04-08-2025
4/9
petitioners raises a question of law that this is a case where the
petitioners have been alleged to be in connivance with the other
accused persons by virtue of them being the Circle Officer and
the Revenue Karmchari, meaning thereby, they are public
servant and therefore, any action done by them in discharge of
their official duty, would attract the provisions of Section 197 of
Cr.P.C. which provides for obtaining sanction from the
Government, if the acts committed by the petitioners were
purporting to be during the discharge of their official duty.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners at this
juncture, refers to the judgment delivered in the case of
Devinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab through C.B.I. reported in
(2016) 12 SCC 87, wherein Paragraph ’39’ of the judgment, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the opportunities
emerging from all the decisions on the point of sanction and is
summarized as under:-
“39. The principles emerging from the aforesaid
decisions are summarised hereunder:
39.1. Protection of sanction is an assurance to
an honest and sincere officer to perform his duty
honestly and to the best of his ability to further
public duty. However, authority cannot be
camouflaged to commit crime.
39.2. Once act or omission has been found to
have been committed by public servant in
discharging his duty it must be given liberal and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28470 of 2024(2) dt.04-08-2025
5/9wide construction so far its official nature is
concerned. Public servant is not entitled to
indulge in criminal activities. To that extent
Section 197 CrPC has to be construed narrowly
and in a restricted manner.
39.3. Even in facts of a case when public
servant has exceeded in his duty, if there is
reasonable connection it will not deprive him of
protection under Section 197 CrPC. There cannot
be a universal rule to determine whether there is
reasonable nexus between the act done and
official duty nor is it possible to lay down such
rule.
39.4. In case the assault made is intrinsically
connected with or related to performance of
official duties, sanction would be necessary
under Section 197 CrPC, but such relation to
duty should not be pretended or fanciful claim.
The offence must be directly and reasonably
connected with official duty to require sanction.
It is no part of official duty to commit offence. In
case offence was incomplete without proving, the
official act, ordinarily the provisions of Section
197 CrPC would apply.”
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 257/2011 in the case of General Officer, Commanding
versus C.B.I. has opined as follows:-
” Thus, in view of the above, the law
on the issue of sanction can be summarized to the
effect that the question of sanction is of
paramount importance for protecting a public
servant who has acted in good faith while
performing his duty. In order that the public
servant may not be unnecessarily harassed on a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28470 of 2024(2) dt.04-08-2025
6/9complaint of an unscrupulous person, it is
obligatory on the part of the executive authority
to protect him….. If the law requires sanction,
and the court proceeds against a public servant
without sanction, the public servant has a right to
raise the issue of jurisdiction as the entire action
may be rendered void ab-initio.””
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has thus
submitted that the learned Court below have miserably failed to
consider the legal proposition especially for the fact that the
petitioners were government servants and the allegations are
primarily on account of the discharge of their official duty. The
learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the learned
Courts below have not taken into account that as far as the
creation of false or fabricated Basgit Purcha is concerned, the
same is upon the predecessors of the petitioners’ office and the
petitioners had joined very recently in the year 2019 and 2021
respectively. It has further been submitted that the petitioners
cannot be treated at par with the other private accused persons
against whom the complainant had alleged of forceful
construction of their houses. The learned counsel for the
petitioners thus submit that in view of the aforesaid
submissions, the order taking cognizance as well as the
revisional order is bad in law and thus, fit to be set aside.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2
submits that the petitioners have illegally made forged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28470 of 2024(2) dt.04-08-2025
7/9
documents (purchas) and kept it secretly and were trying to
forcibly dispossess the complainant since 2003 for which a
criminal case was also lodged. The learned counsel for the O.P.
No. 2 further submits that the Petitioner No. 1 being the Circle
Officer has openly disobeyed the orders of District Magistrate,
Purnea passed in Revenue Revision Case No. 118 of 2019 and
allowed the construction to be carried out on the land of the
complainant. The learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has stated
that during the inquiry, the witnesses supported the case of the
complainant and the challenge to the order taking cognizance
before the Revisional Court, has also failed and the Revision
Application filed by the petitioners, have been dismissed,
finding no merits in the claim of the petitioners. It is lastly
submitted that the orders impugned are completely legal and
based on the facts of the case and thus needs no interference.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this
Court finds that from perusal of the complaint as well as the
statements of the witnesses during the course of inquiry, it is
clear that the petitioners have been admittedly shown to be
government officials and the primary thrust was that it was the
petitioners who had permitted the private accused persons to
carry on the construction work despite there being an order of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28470 of 2024(2) dt.04-08-2025
8/9
stay passed by the learned Collector. In view of such evidence,
it is clear that the petitioners were carrying out work as the
Circle Officer and Revenue Karmchari respectively and even
the allegations levelled against them, was with regard to their
inaction while discharging their duty. This Court has also
observed that there is general and omnibus allegations with the
use of the word ‘accused persons’ throughout the complaint
petition without specific attribution to any of the accused
persons including the petitioners and therefore, in view of the
provisions as contained in Section 197 of Cr.P.C., as discussed
hereinabove, in absence of any sanction order, the complaint
case against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process
of law and being in teeth of the various judicial pronouncements
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thus the impugned orders are
fit to be quashed.
10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this
Court finds the impugned orders to have been passed without
appreciating the fact that the petitioners were government
servants and the allegations are primarily based against them of
inaction while discharging their official duty. Therefore, it was
incumbent upon the learned Court below to proceed only after
proper sanction against the petitioners and hence, the impugned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28470 of 2024(2) dt.04-08-2025
9/9
order dated 10.01.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Purnea in Criminal Revision No. 116 of 2023/C.I.S. No.
116/2023 as well as order taking cognizance dated 21.12.2022,
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in
Complaint Case No. 1180 of 2022 , is hereby set aside.
11. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Siwani/-
U T
[ad_2]
Source link