Orissa High Court
Sri Sudarsan Das Alias Dash And Another vs Smt. Sarojini Mohapatra on 30 January, 2017
Author: S. K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
CRLMC NO. 2228 OF 2003
An application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 in connection with I.C.C. Case No.06 of 2003
pending on the file of S.D.J.M., Nilgiri.
------------------------
Sri Sudarsan Das @
Dash and another ......... Petitioners
-Versus-
Smt. Sarojini Mohapatra ......... Opposite party
For Petitioners: - Mr. Dillip Kumar Misra
Mr. S. C. Mohanty
For Opposite Party: - Mr. Satyabrata Pradhan
------------------------
P R E S E N T:-
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 21.10.2016 Date of Judgment: 30.01.2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. K. SAHOO, J.The petitioners Sudarsan Das and Baikunthanath Mishra have filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the impugned order dated 26.05.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Nilgiri in I.C.C. Case No.06 of 2003 in taking cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 456, 427, 354, 323, 380, 506 (II) read with 2 section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against them.
2. The opposite party Smt. Sarojini Mohapatra filed a complaint petition in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Nilgiri against the petitioners and one Arun Mahalik alleging therein that on 09.01.2003 night at about 1.30 a.m., the petitioners along with other police personnels entered inside her house premises, banged on the door and directed the inmates of the house to open the door. In spite of all efforts, when the door was not opened, they forced open the window of the bedroom, focused torch light inside the house and threatened the husband of the complainant directing him to open the door. Out of fear, the family members of the complainant shouted for help remaining inside the house. The accused persons then broke open the wooden door of the backyard and also broke open the second door by means of a crowbar, entered inside the house of the complainant and then into the bed room of her son and daughter-in-law. Then they woke up the daughter-in-law of the complainant, dragged her out of the bed. Thereafter the petitioner no.1 and co-accused Arun Mahalik tied up the elder son of the complainant and carried him outside. When the daughter-in-law of the complainant came to the rescue of her 3 husband, the petitioner no.2 assaulted her and made her flat on the ground. The son of the complainant was carried outside and he was assaulted by the petitioner no.2 by means of a lathi on his back and thigh. Co-accused Arun Mahalik dragged the other son of the complainant outside and all the accused persons kicked open the door of the bedroom. It is the further case of the complainant that when request was made to the accused persons not to enter into the house with shoes as it would affect the religious sentiment of the complainant's family members, they did not pay any heed to such request, on the other hand they demanded Rs.5,000/- (five thousand only) and threatened to arrest the family members of the complainant and institute a false case against them. The accused persons tried to drag the husband of the complainant who was an old and ailing person and suffering from high blood pressure. The complainant requested the police officials to leave her husband but they did not pay any heed to her request. When the villagers and other witnesses arrived at the spot and protested, the accused persons left the spot giving threat to the family members of the complainant. Co-accused Arun Mahalik snatched away a gold chain from the neck of the complainant on the instruction of petitioner no.1. The complainant informed the Circle Inspector of 4 Nilgiri Police Station about the occurrence through registered post and on 11.01.2003. She also informed the Superintendent of Police, State Commission for Women regarding the incident through registered post. No action was taken on the representation of the complainant for which the complaint petition was filed on 16.01.2003.
The learned Magistrate recorded the initial statement of the complainant-opposite party, conducted inquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C., during course of which three witnesses were examined and then passed the impugned order holding that prima facie material are available in respect of the offences.
3. Mr. Dillip Kumar Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and the ingredients of the offences under which cognizance has been taken are not attracted. It is further contended that the petitioners are the police officers and on the date of occurrence, in due discharge of their official duty, they conducted raid in the house of the complainant to apprehend her two sons namely, Chittaranjan Mohapatra and Suranjan Mohapatra who were the accused persons in Nilgiri P.S. Case No.121 of 2002 under sections 147, 148, 336, 341, 448, 323, 324, 325, 294, 506(II), 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code 5 and Nilgiri P.S. Case No. 122 of 2002 under sections 448, 341, 353, 294, 506, 323, 324, 325, 307/35 of the Indian Penal Code for which they have been falsely entangled in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the first information report lodged against the sons of the complainant and also the station diary entries nos. 117, 170 and 173 which indicate that the raiding party called upon the inmates of the house of the complainant to open the door but the husband of the complainant refused to open the door and the sons of the complainant tried to escape for which the police official applying force entered inside the house through the back door and were able to apprehend the sons of the complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners along with other police officials were instrumental in apprehending the two sons of the complainant, for that reason the complaint petition has been filed with an ulterior motive just to harass the petitioners. It is further contended that since the alleged offences have been committed in due discharge of the official duties, the petitioners are entitled to the protection as envisaged under section 197 of Cr.P.C. The sanction for prosecution being mandatory in nature, having not been taken, 6 the impugned order of taking cognizance is not sustainable in the eye of law and therefore, should be set aside.
The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decisions of this Court in case of Sarat Chandra Rath
-Vrs.- Malti Tandi reported in (2014) 59 Orissa Criminal Reports 1, Satyabadi Padhi -Vrs.- Nepal Chandra Kar reported in 2001(1) Orissa Law Reviews 238, Kremjit Mohananda -Vrs.- Mohanpani Karua reported in 1995 (II) Orissa Law Reviews 284, Rohit Kumar That -Vrs.- State of Orissa reported in (2010) 46 Orissa Criminal Reports 614 and Sangram Keshari Behera -Vrs.- Niladi Dhir reported in (2012) 52 Orissa Criminal Reports 362.
4. Mr. Satyabrata Pradhan, learned counsel for the opposite party-complainant on the other hand contended that the overtact committed by the accused-petitioners in outraging the modesty of the daughter-in-law of the complainant, committing theft of the gold necklace of the complainant, forcibly entering into the house of the complainant during mid-night cannot be said to have been done in discharge of the official duty of the petitioners and therefore, the protective umbrella of requirement of sanction is not necessary. The learned counsel for the opposite-party placed reliance in the case of Keshaba Jena 7
-Vrs.- Pradipta Kishore Das reported in (1989) 2 Orissa Criminal Reports 34, Samir Chandra Guha -Vrs.- K. Pradhan reported in (1989) 2 Orissa Criminal Reports 356, Kailash Chandra Mahanta -Vrs.- Ganeswar Amanta reported in 1990 (I) Orissa Law Reviews 432, Devinder Singh -Vrs.- State of Punjab reported in (2016) 64 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 380, Choudhury Parveen Sultana
-Vrs.- State of West Bengal reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 398 and Pranab Kumar Pradhan -Vrs.- State of Orissa reported in (2016) 63 Orissa Criminal Reports 1051.
5. Protection of sanction as envisaged under section 197 of Cr.P.C. serves a very salutary purpose, viz., it protects the honest and sincere officer in the performance of their official duty and prevents demoralization of such officer against threat of frivolous and malicious prosecution leading to harassment.
"Official duty" implies that the act or omission should have been done in discharge of the duty. Once any act or omission has been found to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of his duty then it must be given liberal and wide construction. Existence of reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty is necessary.8
Law is well settled that the protection given under section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not a cloak for doing the objectionable act. The excesses committed by the public servant during the performance of official duty are also protected under section 197 of Cr.P.C. It is the duty of the Court to find out whether the act done by the public servant and the official duty are so inter-
connected/inter-related that one can postulate reasonably that it was done by the accused in performance of the official duty, though possibly in excess of the needs and requirements of the situation.
In case of Sarat Chandra Rath -Vrs.- Malti Tandi reported in (2014) 59 Orissa Criminal Reports 1, it is held as follows:-
"32...Coming to the question regarding requirement of sanction for prosecution under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C., it is now well settled that the protection given under Section 197 of the Code 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. The policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in 9 the discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause, and if sanction is granted, to confer on the Government, if they choose to exercise it, complete control of the prosecution. This protection 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. 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. The question is not as to the nature of the offence such as whether the alleged offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon the offender being a public servant, but whether it was committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge of his official capacity. Before Section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the act, because the official act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must fall within the 10 scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which is important and the protection of this section is available if the act falls within the scope and range of his official duty."
In case of Satyabadi Padhi -Vrs.- Nepal Chandra Kar reported in 2001(1) Orissa Law Reviews 238, it is held as follows:-
"12..... In the case at hand, as well as in the complaint so lodged, the son of the opp. party No. 1 was taken to the police station for interrogation by the petitioner on the strength of an FIR which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. It is also an admitted fact that the son of the opp. party No. 1 was also involved in some criminal cases previously. So, the petitioner taking the consent of the opp. party No. 1 took his son to the police station for the purpose of interrogation. The allegation so made might be in excess of performance of official duty, but cannot be said to be totally unconnected with the official duty or cannot be held to be in non-performance of his official duty. It is not disputed that the petitioner is not removable from his office except by or with the sanction of the State Government. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance without dealing 11 with the aforesaid aspect and in a mechanical manner.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to the protective umbrella under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The requirement of obtaining sanction for his prosecution being mandatory and admittedly no sanction having been taken, the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner cannot be sustained. The order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence is bad and is accordingly, set aside."
In case of Kremjit Mohananda -Vrs.- Mohanpani Karua reported in 1995 (II) Orissa Law Reviews 284, it is held as follows:-
"4........The aforesaid allegations made in the complaint would show that opp. party No. 1 arrested and detained the petitioner in police hazat in connection with the gambling case. Refusal of opp. party No. 1 to release the petitioner on bail cannot be said to be unconnected or not reasonably connected with his official duty. The request made by the petitioner to allow him to go on bail seemed to have been not appreciated by opp. party No. 1 for which he got annoyed and directed the Gramarakhi to assault the petitioner. When the petitioner made further request not to assault 12 him, opp. party No. 1 was alleged to have rushed towards the petitioner and assaulted him and rebuked him in filthy language. It has to be borne in mind that all these things, if they were all true, happened following the arrest of the petitioner in connection with the gambling case. Non-release of the petitioner on bail followed by assault and rebuke might be in excess of the performance of the official duty but they cannot be said to be totally unconnected with the official duty or cannot be held to be not in course of performance of official duty. It is not disputed that opp. party No. 1 is not removable from his office except by or with the sanction of the State Government. For the aforesaid reasons, opp. party No. 1 is entitled to the protective umbrella under Section 197 Cr P.C. Requirement of obtaining sanction for his prosecution being mandatory and admittedly no sanction having been taken, cognizance against opp. party No. 1 cannot be supported in law. The order of the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, cannot be faulted with".
In case of Rohit Kumar That -Vrs.- State of Orissa reported in (2010) 46 Orissa Criminal Reports 614, it is held as follows:-
13
"9.... On close scrutiny of the facts of the present case also, it would appear that the petitioner, while performing his official duty of investigating a criminal case on an F.I.R. disclosing cognizable offence, went to the house of the complainant in search of the accused named in the said F.I.R. There are allegations of committing acts which exceed such official duty but it cannot be ruled out that it had no nexus to the performance of the official duty of the petitioner.
10. In view of the above, there was a mandatory requirement of obtaining sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. which admittedly, has not been obtained and, therefore, the order of cognizance taken by the Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law."
In case of Sangram Keshari Behera -Vrs.- Niladi Dhir reported in (2012) 52 Orissa Criminal Reports 362, it is held as follows:-
"The facts that arise for consideration in the present case necessitate this Court to observe and issue direction to all Magistrate to exercise power of cognizance in complaint case against public officer with due care and caution, especially, in cases where complaints are lodged against police officers for alleged excess act 14 committed by them in course of due discharge of their official duty. This Court has experience that a number of complaint cases are lodged against police officers only because action is taken by the police either to investigate, apprehend or prosecute an accused and in such circumstances, the accused persons acting through their family members, relatives and/or villagers by filling complaints and in such circumstance, the Court before whom such complaints are lodged, must act with due care and caution and in appropriate case may also seek assistance of the District Superintendent of Police. The Magistrate should enquire from the complainant as to whether the police officers against whom, the complaints are being lodged had any connection with any official duty, which was being discharged by the police officer or not at the time of alleged incident. It was seen that in various cases, when the Magistrate shall take cognizance on complaint do not give any finding whatsoever regarding the applicability or otherwise of Section 197 Cr.P.C. which is mandatory."
In case of Keshaba Jena -Vrs.- Pradipta Kishore Das reported in (1989)2 Orissa Criminal Reports 34, it is held as follows:-
15
"......The learned S.D.J.M. has also fallen into further error of law by holding that even if the facts stated in the complaint are correct, yet the opposite parties would be protected under Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure since the acts complained of were in course of discharge of their duty in official capacity and without sanction under Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure the prosecution was not maintainable. The view is wide off the mark of law since it is now well settled by various decisions of this Court ........ that assault by a police officer inside the police station even during investigation of a case, or abusing a person is not an action committed in discharge of any duty and that for such action the immunity from prosecution without a sanction of the competent authority is not available."
In case of Samir Chandra Guha -Vrs.- K. Pradhan reported in (1989) 2 Orissa Criminal Reports 356, it is held as follows:-
"6............. So, the sum and substance of the prosecution case is assault on the petitioners by the opposite parties - police officers at the police station. There is no material to show that the petitioners attempted to escape from the police station from custody and that they themselves used any force against the police officers. That 16 being the position, it was entirely unnecessary for the opposite parties being police officers to use force against the petitioners so as to assault them as had been alleged by them before the learned Court below ....... It was no part of the duty of the police officers to assault persons inside the police station in due discharge of their public duties. On the other hand, Courts have always viewed with seriousness assaults inside the police stations which in many cases have led to death. On the facts of this case, the conclusion is inescapable that there was absolutely no nexus of the alleged occurrence with the police officers' discharge of public duties. Therefore, according to law, sanction for prosecution under section 197 of the Code was wholly unnecessary."
In case of Kailash Chandra Mahanta -Vrs.-
Ganeswar Amanta reported in 1990 (I) Orissa Law Reviews 432, it is held as follows:-
"3. In my view, the use of the expression "while acting" determines the nature of the act complained of. Each case has to be examined in the light of the offence alleged against the accused in order to ascertain whether Section 197 is applicable or not and as to whether he was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The privilege of 17 immunity from prosecution without sanction is only extended to acts which can be shown to have been done in the discharge of official duty, or in purported exercise of such power. An offence arising out of official position but not purported to be a part there of, does not require any sanction under Section 197. The section is neither to be too narrowly construed nor too widely. It is not the "duty" which requires examination so much as the "act" because the official act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it."
In case of Devinder Singh -Vrs.- State of Punjab reported in (2016) 64 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 380, it is held as follows:-
"37. The principles emerging from the aforesaid decisions are summarized hereunder:
I. 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.
II. Once act or omission has been found to have been committed by public servant in discharging his duty it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is 18 concerned. Public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner.
III. 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 Code of Criminal Procedure There cannot be a universal Rule to determine whether there is reasonable nexus between the act done and official duty nor it is possible to lay down such rule.
IV. In case the assault made is intrinsically connected with or related to performance of official duties, sanction would be necessary under Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 Code of Criminal Procedure would apply.
V. In case sanction is necessary, it has to be decided by competent authority and sanction has to be issued on the basis of sound objective assessment. The Court is not to be a sanctioning authority.19
VI. Ordinarily, question of sanction should be dealt with at the stage of taking cognizance, but if the cognizance is taken erroneously and the same comes to the notice of Court at a later stage, finding to that effect is permissible and such a plea can be taken first time before appellate Court. It may arise at inception itself. There is no requirement that accused must wait till charges are framed.
VII. Question of sanction can be raised at the time of framing of charge and it can be decided prima facie on the basis of accusation. It is open to decide it afresh in light of evidence adduced after conclusion of trial or at other appropriate stage.
VIII. Question of sanction may arise at any stage of proceedings. On a police or judicial inquiry or in course of evidence during trial. Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage and material brought on record depending upon facts of each case. Question of sanction can be considered at any stage of the proceedings. Necessity for sanction may reveal itself in the course of the progress of the case and it would be open to accused to place material during the course of trial for showing what his duty was. Accused has the right to lead evidence in support of his case on merits.20
IX. In some case it may not be possible to decide the question effectively and finally without giving opportunity to the defence to adduce evidence. Question of good faith or bad faith may be decided on conclusion of trial."
In case of Choudhury Parveen Sultana -Vrs.-
State of West Bengal reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 398, it is held as follows:-
"18. The direction which had been given by this Court, as far back as in 1971 in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava case (Ref:- (1970) 2 SCC
56) holds good even today. All acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, there can be cases of misuse and/or abuse of powers vested in a public servant which can never be said to be a part of the official duties required to be performed by him. As mentioned in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava's case, the underlying object of Section 197 Cr.P.C is to enable the authorities to scrutinize the allegations made against a public servant to shield him/her against frivolous, vexatious or false prosecution initiated with the main object of causing embarrassment and harassment to the said official. However, as indicated 21 hereinabove, if the authority vested in a public servant is misused for doing things which are not otherwise permitted under the law, such acts cannot claim the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and have to be considered dehors the duties which a public servant is required to discharge or perform. Hence, in respect of prosecution for such excesses or misuse of authority, no protection can be demanded by the public servant concerned."
In case of Pranab Kumar Pradhan -Vrs.- State of Orissa reported in (2016) 63 Orissa Criminal Reports 1051, it is held as follows:-
"8. It is the settled principle of law that protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is available only where the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. In order to avail the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C., it must be shown that the official concerned had committed certain acts in due discharge of his official duty, though the acts may be in excess of exercise of the power and has reasonable connection with discharge of his official duty. If the acts complained of are in no way connected with the discharge of the official duty, then the official cannot have the protection of Section 197 22 Cr.P.C. Offences of theft, criminal intimidation etc. by a Police Officer in course of investigation of a crime cannot be said to have any relation to the discharge of his official duty of conducting investigation."
In view of the aforesaid discussion regarding the applicability of section 197 of Cr.P.C. and looking at the factual aspects, it is clear that the petitioners had been to the house of the complainant on the night of occurrence in connection with official duty i.e. to arrest the two sons of the complainant against whom first information reports had been lodged at Nilgiri Police Station for commission of offences, inter alia, under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears that in spite of warning being given to open the door of the house, the family members of the complainant did not oblige the same for which force was applied to the back door of the house and the police officials entered inside the house of the complainant and arrested her two sons and produced them in the police station on the very same day. The arrest memos were prepared and station diary entries were made. The complainant in her initial statement has stated that the accused persons came to her house and knocked the door but they did not open the door for which they broke the window and called them out so as to open 23 the door and in spite of that as they did not open the door, the accused persons went to the back side of the house, broke the door and forcibly entered inside the house. Similar statement has been made by Sabita Mohapatra who is the daughter-in-law of the complainant during her examination in course of inquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C.. The extract of the station dairy entry no.173 dated 09.01.2003 of Nilgiri Police Station made at 4.30 a.m. indicate that the owner of the house Damodar Mohapatra (husband of the complainant) and his two sons did not open the door and the sons of the complainant were intentionally avoiding arrest and trying to escape and therefore, force was applied to the back side tin door which was opened in presence of the witnesses and the sons of the complainant were taken into custody after being chased.
Section 47 of Cr.P.C. compels the householders to afford the police, facilities in carrying out their duties. Under sub- section (1) of section 47 of Cr.P.C., the police officer is to be allowed free ingress into the house for the purpose of search and afforded all reasonable facilities for a search therein, and where free ingress is not possible, the police officer is authorised to force himself into the house. There is no doubt that the authority who is to effect the arrest must strictly abide by the safeguards 24 enumerated under section 47 of the Code, in other words their power is not unlimited. Whether the action of the police officers was or was not justified has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. The arrest is permissible only in a case where the circumstances of the said case so require and there is a justification for making the arrest otherwise not.
In both the cases which had been instituted against the sons of the complainant, the allegations are for commission of offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code which is a cognizable and non-bailable offence and therefore, the police officer is empowered to arrest the accused without warrant. In the complaint petition, though it is mentioned that when the daughter-in-law of the complainant tried to rescue her husband, the petitioner no.2 assaulted him by means of fists, kick blows and slaps for which she fell down on the ground but in her initial statement, the complainant has stated that when her daughter- in-law raised protest, the petitioner no.2 dragged her saree and assaulted by a lathi and made her lie down. The daughter-in-law of the complainant has not stated that any of the petitioners dragged her saree nor any such allegation is there in the complaint petition. The station diary entries indicate as to how and why the force was used to arrest the sons of the 25 complainant. Even though some overtacts have been alleged against the petitioners like dragging of the daughter-in-law of the complainant, commission of theft of necklace and assault to the complainant but there are serious discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses in that respect.
The learned Magistrate has not considered the sanction aspect at all while taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process against the petitioners. In spite of the order passed by this Court in case of Sangram Keshari Behera (supra), the learned Magistrate has not inquired from the complainant as to whether the petitioners against whom, the complaint has been lodged had any connection with any official duty, which was being discharged by them at the time of alleged incident. The act complained of due to which the offence is stated to have been committed appears to have been committed by the petitioners while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. Even though the allegations are that of commission of excesses by the petitioners while performing their official duties, in my humble view, the petitioners could not have been prosecuted without sanction from the competent authority. Sanction for prosecution under section 197 of the Cr.P.C. by the appropriate authority is a 26 necessary pre-requisite before a Court of competent jurisdiction takes cognizance of an offence.
Resultantly, the impugned order suffers from non- application of mind and is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the CRLMC application is allowed.
..................................
S. K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 30th January, 2017/Sisir