Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Seema Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 2025
1 CRR-3511-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3388 of 2021
RAJ KISHORE JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Amit Pandey - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the respondent no.9.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3597 of 2021
SMT.SEEMA THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Satish Kumar Thakur - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Amit Pandey - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the respondent no.10.
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3511 of 2023
SMT. SEEMA THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Amit Pandey - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
2 CRR-3511-2023
Reserved on : 23.06.2025
Pronounced on : 16.07.2025
ORDER
These Revisions are heard analogously and are being decided by a
common order.
2. This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the order dated
09.09.2021 and order dated 14.07.2023 on the ground that both the
applicants are the government servant and the protection of Section 197 of
Cr.P.C. is available to them but without obtaining the sanction from the
competent authority, the prosecution was launched and the trial court has not
considered this fact while framing the charges for the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and requested that they
be discharged from the above offences.
3. The facts giving rise to these cases in brief are that one of the co-
accused in the criminal case Mrs. Shashibai Mishra applied for the post of
Anganwadi karyakarta and her appointment letter was issued by Raj Kishore
Jha who at that time was CEO of Janpad Panchayat, Bahoriband. It is also
alleged that the applicant-Seema Thakur was the member of the recruitment
committee. A complaint was made by two persons namely Ms. Madhu
Paroha and Virendra Mishra that Shashibai Mishra got appointment of
Anganwadi Karyakarta on the basis of fraud and forged documents. The
matter was reported to higher authorities. As per the order of Additional
Commissioner (Revenue), the inquiry was made by SDO, Revenue,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
3 CRR-3511-2023
Bahoriband in which it was found that Smt. Shashibai Mishra was appointed
in the year 1998 using the marksheet of Neelam Choubey who is the
daughter of her brother and thus, they are related as a Bua and Bhatiji.
4. On 01.03.2000, Smt. Shashibai Mishra filed a separate application
that due to mistake, she has submitted a wrong marksheet and her name be
corrected in the service record. On that basis, the name of Neelam was
deleted and fresh order was passed in the name of Smt. Shashibai Mishra.
When the record from the office of CEO, Janpad Panchayat was called and
that was not supplied to SDO. In the inquiry, it was found that the
appointment was made by CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Bahoriband, R.K. Jha
and his team in which Dr. R.S. Rajput, Uma Awasthi and Seema Thakur
were as supervisors. The documents were sought from Dr. R.S. Rajput. He
has submitted that on transfer, he has handed over all the documents to S.P.
Singh. Lastly SDO, Revenue concluded that the applicant-Raj Kishore Ojha
(K.K. Ojha) without making the sufficient inquiry has issued the
appointment letter with great carelessness and his act comes in the purview
of crime.
5. The report was sent to Commissioner, Jabalpur Division and on the
report of Revenue Authorities, the FIR was lodged against the applicants.
6. After the investigation, the chargesheet was submitted on
05.03.2016 before Judicial Magistrate First Class and on commitment, the
case was sent to Sessions Court. The trial Court as per the order dated
09.09.2021 had dismissed the application. By being aggrieved with that, this
revision petitions have been filed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
4 CRR-3511-2023
7. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant-Raj
Kishore Jha was appointed by Madhya Pradesh Government on the basis of
recommendation of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Exam in
1989 by order dated 02.11.1991 and submitted that the applicant is an
employee of Madhya Pradesh Government and without sanction of the
Government of Madhya Pradesh, he cannot be prosecuted as Section 197 of
Cr.P.C. creates a bar. He is an employee of the Government of Madhya
Pradesh and without sanction of Government of Madhya Pradesh, he cannot
be prosecuted for any offence alleged to have been committed by him by
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court
could take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of
the Government.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted on behalf of
Raj Kishore Ojha that as per amended Rules of Women and Child Welfare
Department Madhya Pradesh Government, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, the
observer will seek the panel of three to five persons for appointment from
Gram Panchayat and in recommending the names, the observer shall also
intimate the qualification to the village panchayat and the village panchayat
within 15 days from the demand of panel shall make available to
observer/supervisor. The panel and the supervisor/observer within 15 days
shall examine whether the persons recommended in panel have requisite
qualification or not? After that, he shall forward to panel through Child
Development Project Officer to Janpad Panchayat and observer/Child
Welfare Development Officer shall examine the candidature. After that, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
5 CRR-3511-2023
candidates have requisite qualification and Project Officer at that time when
the name is considered by Janpad Panchayat, shall be present and ensure that
the person having requisite qualification is eligible to be appointed. After
that, the appointment letter shall be issued by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that the
requisite qualification for the post of Aganwadi Karyakarta was metric and
non-metric. There was difference that the person having metric certificate
was eligible for honorary amount of Rs.500/- per month whereas the person
having non-metric qualification was eligible for honorarium amount of
Rs.438/- per month. It was also mandatory that she should be the voter of the
concerned village from where the Aganwadi is proposed to be opened.
10. Learned counsel has further submitted that the tenth class
marksheet was not compulsory. It was the duty of supervisor/observer to
ensure that the applicant had the requisite qualification and it was not the
personal liability of CEO, Janpad Panchayat. He has submitted that in the
case, the applicant-Raj Kishore Ojha had to ensure the qualification for the
post in question and also to check the documents. Furthermore, it is also
argued that the appointment letter (Annexure A-6) was issued containing a
condition that the Joining Officer shall verify the original documents with
photocopies and only thereafter, he shall permit the candidates to join.
11. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the
documents stated to have been destroyed or not produced before the Inquiry
Officer. It was not his duty as he was not posted at that time as a CEO,
Bahoriband. In 1999, he was transferred from Bahoriband to Chhattisgarh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
6 CRR-3511-2023
and the second letter as stated was forged and the appointment letter dated
11.09.1998 only was issued by him but no amended letter was issued by him.
If it was forged by Shashi Mishra, he is not liable for that.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the
applicant has made the representation and through his Department, he sought
the information. At that time, it was not disclosed that any case has been
registered against the applicant. No permission was taken from the
Government of Madhya Pradesh or Chhattisgarh. The trial Court has
wrongly applied the precedent law in the case and the case cited by trial
Court in Ramkrishna Shankar Avhad v. Rajendra Jagannath Parikh and
another, 1997 CRILJ 183 is not applicable in the case. In the same way, the
case law cited by the trial Court in Vimal Kumar v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2005(3) M.P.H.T. 167 is also not applicable in this case as in that
case, the employee was held liable for misappropriation of the bank fund and
cheating that does not come in the purview of official duty of any person.
13. Learned counsel has further submitted that when the inquiry was
made by the Revenue Authority, no chance was given to him to put his
defence and thus, it is violated the principles of natural justice and to that
point, he has relied with the judgment of Kailash Kumar Dangi v. State of
M.P. and others, 2000(1) M.P.H.T. 143 and Kamal Kishore v. Janpad
Panchayat, Nalkheda and others, 2000(1) M.P.H.T. 212 in which it has been
held that as per the provision of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993,
Section 40 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam- Inquiry to be held in conformity
with the principle of natural justice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
7 CRR-3511-2023
14. Further on relying on the various judgments of the Courts, learned
counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the judgment of Sankaran
Moitra v. Sadhna Das and others, MANU/SC/1484/2006 , in paragraph no.11
of the above judgment, the Apex Court discussing the case law in Amrik
Singh v. the State of PEPSU held that it is not every offence committed by a
public servant that requires sanction for prosecution under Section 197(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure; nor even every act done by him while he is
actually engaged in the performance of his official duties, but if the act
complained of is directly concerned with his official duties so that, if
questioned, it could be claimed to have been done by virtue of the office,
then sanction would be necessary; and that would be so, irrespective of
whether it was, in fact, a proper discharge of his duties, because that would
really be a matter of defence on the merits, which would have to be
investigated at the trial, and could not arise at the stage of the grant of
sanction, which must precede the institution of the prosecution. In this case,
it was further held that the question may arise at any stage of the
proceedings. The complaint may not disclose that the act constituting the
offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty;
but facts subsequently coming to light on a police or judicial inquiry or even
in the course of the prosecution evidence at the trial, may establish the
necessity for sanction. Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be
determined from state to stage. The necessity may reveal itself in the course
of the progress of the case.
15. On that basis, it is submitted that in this case, there is direct nexus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
8 CRR-3511-2023
between the official duty and the act done as he has issued the appointment
letter as he was authorised to do that.
16. Learned counsel also relying on the judgment in the case of Anjani
Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2008 SC 1992 particularly
paragraph nos.11, 12, 14 and 15 in which it has been held that 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, he
excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from the
protection. Further, it is also held that one safe and sure test in this regard
would be to consider if the omission or neglect on the part of the public
servant to commit the act complained of could have made him answerable
for a charge of dereliction of his official duty, if the answer to his question is
in the affirmative, it may be said that such act was committed by the public
servant while acting in the discharge of his official duty and there was every
connection with the act complained of and the official duty of the public
servant. This aspect makes it clear that the concept of Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
does not get immediately attracted on institution of the complaint case. If the
act complained of is directly concerned with his official duties so that, if
questioned, it could be claimed to have been done by virtue of the office,
then sanction would be necessary.
17. It has been further held in paragraph no.15 that it has been widened
further by extending protection to even those acts or omissions which are
done in purported exercise of official duty. That is under the colour of office.
Official duty therefore implies that the act or omission must have been done
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
9 CRR-3511-2023
by the public servant in course of his service and such act or omission must
have been performed as part of duty which further must have been official in
nature.
18. Learned counsel relaying on the judgment of Rakesh Kumar
Mishra v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 2006 SC 820 in which it has been
held that no cognizance has been taken even after cognizance having been
taken if facts come to light that the acts complained of were done in the
discharge of the official duties then the trial may have to be stayed unless
sanction is obtained. The word used in Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is that ‘no’ and
‘shall’ make it abundantly clearly that the bar on the exercise of power by the
court to take cognizance of any offence is absolute and complete. Very
cognizance is barred.
19. Learned counsel further relying on the judgment of Anil Kumar
Mishra v. State of U.P. and another, order passed in application no.11657 of
2015 dated 14.05.2015 has submitted that the protection given under Section
197 of Cr.P.C. 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. 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 from the protection.
20. Learned counsel further relying on the judgment of Ayush Kumar
and other v. State of U.P. passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
10 CRR-3511-2023
order passed in application no.17421 of 2011 dated 10.04.2019 in which it
has been held that without obtaining the sanction from the competent
authority, if the prosecution is launched, the trial Court shall not take
cognizance of the offence. He has also relied on paragraph no.12 of the
judgment of S.K. Prasad and another v. State of M.P. , the order of
Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Revision No.1545/2010
dated 09.05.2013 in which it has been clearly held that without sanction of
Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., the Court has taken the cognizance that is against
the law. He has also cited the judgment of Amal Kumar Jha v. State of
Chhattisgarh and another, (2016) 6 SCC 734 particularly in paragraphs no.8
and 9 of the judgment also relied on the judgment of Ganesh Prasad Dubey v.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others, order of Coordinate Bench of this Court
in M.Cr.C. No.17981/2016 dated 16.07.2018 in which citing the judgment of
Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of UP and others, (1997) 5 SCC 326 , this
Court has held that as the public servant to perform his official duty, is
entitled to protection under Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. Without previous
sanction, the complaint/charge against him for the alleged offence cannot be
proceeded with in the trial court.
21. On citing the some legal positions, learned counsel for the
applicant-Seema Thakur has submitted that she is a government servant and
she was not involved in the process of selection for the post of Anganwadi
Karyakarta and Sahayika in 1998. She was involved in the case as she was
transferred from Bahoriband on 23.04.1996 and the selection process for the
Development Block Project was started in 1998 and on 30.04.1996, she has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
11 CRR-3511-2023
joined in Narayanganj District-Mandla. Thus, she was not working at
Bahoriband. It has been argued on her behalf that to support his contention,
she has also challenged the order dated 14.07.2023 that she has annexed the
transfer order so-call the joining order showing that as per the order dated
23.04.1996, she was relieved on 23.04.1996 from Development Block,
Bahoriband and she has joined on 30.04.1996. She has also submitted the
copy of the service record.
22. Learned Government Advocate for the State has submitted that the
basic case is against the applicants. After inquiry, it was found that the
applicant-Raj Kishore Jha has not only issued one letter but also the
application of the main accused Shashi Mishra. He has issued the amended
letter, then it is also clear that the marksheet was forged and it was the duty
of the appointing authority to ensure that the qualified and eligible person is
appointed and being in the appointing authority, he is bound by his act and it
is clear case of conspiracy and forgery. Hence, no sanction is required while
a person as a public servant forged the documents and appointment letter
with the conspiracy to the other co-accused person as no sanction is required
in the case of forgery and criminal activities while using his post.
23. Learned counsel for the objector has also supported the order
passed by the trial Court and submitted that the applicants conspiring with
Smt. Shashi Mishra appointed her and they are not entitled for protection and
it was not official duty to make appointment on the basis of forged
documents.
24. Parties have also relied on the judgments of State of Uttar Pradesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
12 CRR-3511-2023
v. Paras Nath Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 372 and Anju Singh Baghel v. Economic
Offence Bureau, order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal
Revision No.1210 of 2016 dated 18.10.2016 in which it has been laid down
and it is alleged that the accused passed the order of exchange of land in her
official capacity and there was no allegation of receiving any illegal
gratification. The work is of the official capacity and sanction is mandatory.
The same principle has also been laid down in the case of Paras Nath Singh
(supra).
25. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
26. I have gone through the judgments relied by the trial Court and the
case diary.
27. The case as submitted before the trial Court by the prosecution
whereas the applicant-Raj Kishore Ojha is concerned, no one has taken the
objection that he was appointed by Madhya Pradesh Government Panchayat
and Rural Department on passing the Civil Service Competitive Exam which
was conducted by Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. On
02.11.1991, the appointment letter was issued by Deputy Secretary of
Department of Panchayat and Village Development. It is also admitted fact
that the applicant issued the appointment letter dated 11.01.1998 in favour of
the accused Smt. Shashi @ Sadhana Mishra w/o Rameshwar Prasad Mishra
as a Aganwadi Karyakarta Sahayika in village Budhna. The applicant has
denied that he has issued the amended letter as Annexure A-6 and as SDO,
Bahoriband in his inquiry, he has clearly stated that the marksheet was
forged by Shashi @ Sadhana Mishra forged the marksheet of Neelam her
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
13 CRR-3511-2023
brother’s daughter making it Neelam Shashibai @ Sadhna Mishra. On
30.06.1998, she has submitted two separate affidavits. On 01.03.2000 and
03.04.2000 by filing the affidavits, she has applied for correction of her
name whereas affidavit dated 30.09.1998 she has stated that her name is
Sadhna and Neelam both.
28. Further, it has been found that Neelam @ Sadhna by scratching the
name of Neelam over written name Shashibai. Thus, he has forged the
document. On 10.10.1998, she has been given the joining. She has also
forged the affidavits. In the conclusion of the inquiry, it has been held that
the CEO R.K. Ojha (K.K. Ojha) without making sufficient inquiry, scrutiny,
ignoring the conditions and qualification of post issued appointment letter.
Thus, the main allegation is that the applicant-Raj Kishore Ojha has not
properly scrutinised the document and made inquiry of the document. On
that basis, it is stated that his acts come in the purview of crime.
29. Revenue Officer in its report (Annexure A-2) has clearly stated
that the documents of appointment were handed over to Dr. S.P. Singh
Assistant Veterinary Officer and S.P. Singh has not handed over those
documents.
30. R.K. Ojha was posted as CEO of Janpad from 15.11.1996 to
26.11.1999. He has also stated that the documents were handed over to R.K.
Rajput and R.K. Rajput handed over the documents to S.P. Singh and S.P.
has admitted that he has received the documents but he has not submitted the
documents while he called during the inquiry.
31. Thus, it is not allegation against the applicant that he has forged the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
14 CRR-3511-2023
documents. Additional Commissioner Revenue in his report to Joint Director
integrated Child Development Service, Jabalpur has submitted that the
applicant-Raj Kishore Ojha and his team Dr. R.S. Rajput, Uma Awasthi,
Seema thakur have given the appointment to Mrs. Shashi Mishra without
proper inquiry and no following qualification and condition for
appointment.
32. Thus, the basic thrust of the allegation is that the applicant has
issued the appointment letter to Shashi Mishra without proper scrutiny.
Nowhere it is alleged that the applicant has forged any document or order or
held the documents or destroyed the documents of appointment.
33. As per the rules of the appointment of Anganwadi, it is clear that
the CEO of Janpad Panchayat was authorised person to issue the
appointment letter. In doing that he has not exceeded his jurisdiction and he
has not done any act for which he was not authorised.
34. Thus, it cannot be said that the act alleged has been done without
the official capacity for which he was authorised.
35. Thus, the principles laid down in the case relied by trial Court
in Ramkrishna Shankar Avhad (supra) , and Vimal Kumar (supra) are totally
different from the facts of this case.
36. The applicant was not given the opportunity of hearing in inquiry
and no department proceeding was held against him by which he could
explain his position. Thus, the applicant-Raj Kishore Ojha is entitled for the
protection of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. It is not the case of the prosecution and
not from the order of the trial Court. It appears that the sanction to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
15 CRR-3511-2023
prosecution was obtained from Madhya Pradesh Government or
Chhattisgarh Government. Hence, the Judicial Magistrate has wrongly taken
the cognizance of the offence and the trial Court has wrongly rejected the
application and framed the charges against the applicant.
37. Hence, the cognizance cannot be taken and charges could not be
framed against the applicant and the order of framing charges cannot be
sustained. On that basis, the applicant is discharged from all the charges on
the basis of Police chargesheet filed by P.S. Bahoriband in Crime
No.340/2014. The Criminal Revision no.3388/2021 filed by the applicant-
Raj Kishore Ojha is allowed and he is discharged from the aforesaid
offences.
38. Whereas the case of applicant-Smt. Seema Thakur is concerned.
She has not submitted her appointment letter and furthermore, the document
that she has submitted with the revision is that she has been transferred on
23.04.2016 and joined in the District Women and Child Development
Department, Mandla on 30.04.1996 but this is the matter of fact and not the
question of law only. The matter of fact could be proved by examining the
evidence or cross-examining the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Revision
preferred by applicant-Smt. Seema Thakur could not be allowed. Hence, the
Criminal Revision no.3597/2021 and 3511/2023 are dismissed with the
direction to the trial Court that the legal point regarding bar/protection under
Section 197 of Cr.P.C. shall be decided while passing the judgment.
39. With the copy of this order, the case diary be sent back to the
concerned trial Court for necessary action and compliance.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
16 CRR-3511-2023
40. Copy of this order be kept in connected cases.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
HK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 16-07-2025
18:35:06
[ad_1]
Source link