Patna High Court
Mahesh Kumar Choudhary vs Union Of India Through Superintendent ... on 31 July, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48026 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2017 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
Mahesh Kumar Choudhary, son of late Moti Choudhary, resident of Mohalla-
Pulpar Khandak Road, Post - Bihar Sharif, P.S.- Bihar, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Superintendent of Police, C.B.I, Anti Corruption
Branch, S.K. Path, Patna.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Y.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Sr. C.G.C.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State and the learned Senior C.G.C. for
the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.).
2. The present application has been filed
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section
482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.)
for quashing the order dated 08.07.2021 passed by the learned
Exclusive Magistrate, C.B.I, Patna in C.B.I. Case No. RC
1(S)/17, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance
of offences under sections 193, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read
with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.')
against the accused persons including the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025
2/32
3. The nucleus of the matter before this Court is
the conspiracy to play fraud upon this Court, effected by way of
manipulation and tampering of judicial records in order to
secure favourable orders and unduly benefit three accused
persons who had preferred regular bail application vide
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 57055 of 2015 titled as
'Machin and Ors vs. the State of Bihar'.
4. The brief factual matrix relevant for the
present purpose is that, while considering a regular bail
application in Criminal Miscellaneous No.57055 of 2015,
startling facts regarding manipulation and tampering of records
and fraud committed upon a coordinate Bench of this Court was
brought to light. In nutshell, three accused-petitioners of
Criminal Miscellaneous No.57055 of 2015 namely, Machin,
Md. Khalid and Md. Mustaque had obtained bail fraudulently
by suppressing material facts regarding their earlier failed
attempts to secure bail before this Court and also manipulating
and tempering with judicial records. The aforesaid three
accused-petitioners had earlier attempted on different occasions
to secure bail in connection with Special Case No.35 of 2012,
arising out of Economic Offence P.S. Case no.17 of 2012
wherein huge quantities of ganja was recovered from a truck.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025
3/32
However, the earlier attempts by the aforementioned three
accused-petitioners had resulted in dismissal of their bail
applications by this Court. Vide order dated 08.03.2013 passed
in Criminal Miscellaneous No.9353 of 2013, vide order dated
19.08.2014passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.21696 of 2014 and finally vide common order dated 15.04.2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20667 of 2014 and 24447 of 2017, the bail applications of the aforesaid three accused persons came to be rejected.
5. Thereafter the above three accused-
petitioners once again had attempted to secure bail and filed the Criminal Miscellaneous No.57055 of 2015 wherein vide order dated 01.06.2016, a coordinate Bench of this Court had enlarged them on bail. However, later on, it was revealed that they had conveniently suppressed the material fact regarding their earlier unsuccessful attempts. In paragraph-02 of their bail application, the accused-petitioners therein had mentioned that no previous applications seeking regular or anticipatory bail was ever filed. It was further brought to the notice of the coordinate Bench of this Court that astonishingly the check-list appended along with the application also did not disclose their previous bail applications. The check-list appended with the case record, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 4/32 which was placed before the Bench, not only failed to disclose the earlier attempts that were rejected but also mentioned three cases in which bail applications were allowed.
6. On 07.09.2016, it was revealed that the three accused-petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No.57055 of 2015 acting in conspiracy with other accused persons, had filed the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous No.57055 of 2015 as having arisen out of Economic Offences P.S. Case 11 of 2012 whereas the actual police case was Economic Offences P.S. Case 17 of 2012. This was done in order to circumvent and avoid detection of the previous application history from the check-list. The coordinate Bench had noted that on the initial occasions when the orders were passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.57055 of 2015, i.e. on 17.12.2015, 22.01.2016, 30.01.2016 and 22.02.2016, the header (title) portion of the order reflected P.S. case as 'P.S. Case No. 11 of 2012', however when the case was placed on 01.06.2016, whereby finally bail was granted, the header (title) reflected the P.S. case as 'P.S. Case No.17 of 2012'. Therefore, the Court had noted that it appears that originally the check-list was generated mischievously for a different police case i.e. Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 11 of 2012, wherein the three accused namely, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 5/32 Machin, Md. Khalid and Md. Mustaque, were not even arrayed as accused, but was later substituted with the correct ones by the accused persons, in order to mislead this Court to secure favourable orders for the accused therein. The Court had noted that these mischievous persons ought to have accessed the internal records including digital records/software of the Court which would have enabled them to conveniently effect alterations/manipulations.
7. Taking a serious view of the matter, vide order dated 07.09.2016, the coordinate Bench of this Court had directed the Registrar General of this Court to hold an enquiry and submit a report thereupon. The Court had noted certain other discrepancies on the check-list inasmuch as, the case number for one Jawahar Lal Shah was shown as Criminal Miscellaneous No.4939 of 2014 whereas the actual case number was Criminal Miscellaneous No.4933 of 2014. Further, earlier also the aforementioned Jawahar Lal Shah had moved before this Court for bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 13620 of 2013 unsuccessfully but that was not mentioned in the check-list appended with the file, therefore, the Court had observed that there was a syndicate operating to secure favourable orders by misleading and committing fraud upon this Court. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 6/32
8. By an order dated 23.09.2016 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.57055 of 2015, the coordinate Bench of this Court had noted the findings of the enquiry conducted by the Registrar General of this Court which had concluded that in the acts of manipulation/alteration of records, the role of the learned advocate Raj Nandan Prasad, advocate whose signature appears on the Vakalatnama as well as at the upper margin of the first page of the petition, One Kalu Ram - deponent, Binod Kumar and Chandra Deo Prasad, both Advocate Clerks, and some staff members of this Court 'cannot be denied'. By the same order dated 23.09.2016, the Court recalled its earlier order, by which bail was granted to the three accused-petitioners and also directed the Registrar General to lodge a criminal case with the Central Bureau of Investigation.
9. Based on the written report of the Registrar General of this Court, the present RC 1(S)/17 was registered on 02.02.2017 by the C.B.I.
10. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused persons i.e. the petitioners of Criminal Miscellaneous No.57055 of 2015, acting in conspiracy with other accused persons herein, had manipulated/tampered with the judicial records of this Court in order to secure bail order. It Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 7/32 was also found that the accused-Arun Kumar Tiwari was the main kingpin, who had orchestrated the entire fraud committed upon this Court. It is alleged that a deal for fraudulently securing bail from this Court was settled for Rs.1,50,000/-. Call details records (CDR) of mobile phones of accused Arun Kumar Tiwari, Rajendra Singh @ Shastri- Additional Public Prosecutor, Chandra Deo Prasad and Nand Kishore Singh @ Nandu. both Advocate Clerks and one Raghuvir Kumar @ Sonu reveals that they were in constant contact with each other and had even conversed on the date of the grant of bail i.e., 01.06.2016.
11. Upon investigation, the charge-sheet dated 29.12.2020 was submitted against ten accused persons under sections 193, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Closure report was submitted against F.I.R named accused, Advocate Raj Nandan Prasad for want of sufficient material. During the investigation, Binod Kumar had died on 05.06.2019 and since Kalu Ram could not be identified, charge sheet was not filed against them as well. The Exclusive Magistrate, C.B.I, Patna vide impugned order dated 08.07.2021 took cognizance and issued summons against the ten accused persons including the present petitioner and also accepted the closure report against the three persons namely advocate Raj Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 8/32 Nandan Prasad, Binod Kumar and Kalu Ram.
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. and his name, for the very first time, surfaces only in the charge-sheet. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had performed the so-called final stage of the alleged conspiracy in changing the header portion of the order dated 01.06.2016, by which the bail was granted to the three accused persons therein. However, it is emphasized by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner has merely performed his official duty since he was given the dictation of the aforesaid case in open Court, which is assigned randomly to the P.A./Secretary attached with the Court concerned.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has acted bonafidely, which is evident from the body of the order dated 01.06.2016 wherein the correct P.S. case number was dictated in open Court. It is also pointed out that in the entire bail petition moved by the three accused therein, including the petition and annexures attached thereto reflected the P.S. case as "Economic Offence P.S. Case No.17 of 2012" and therefore, the present petitioner being under the impression that some error might have crept in the header Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 9/32 portion had merely corrected the header portion of the aforesaid order so that the wrong order may not be pronounced.
14. So far as the act of deliberately altering/manipulating with the digital data of the case record is concerned, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time the petitioner, who was working as a P.A. did not have the authority/capacity to carry-out any such change or manipulate the digital data of this Court. The only change made in the header portion of the order by the petitioner was based on the dictation given in open Court together with the bail petition including the accompanying annexures which clearly reflected the P.S. case as 'Economic Offence P.S. Case No.17 of 2012'.
15. It has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the investigating agency was not able to show any material/evidence connecting the petitioner with the larger conspiracy whereas, the investigation has clearly revealed through the analysis of C.D.R. that the other co- accused persons were in constant touch with the kingpin on or before the day of hearing of the bail application but not even an iota of evidence has surfaced against the petitioner to connect him with this conspiracy.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 10/32
16. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the interim order dated 17.12.2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.57055 of 2015 by a different coordinate Bench of this Court. Vide order dated 17.12.2015 the aforesaid Bench had called for the case diary of Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022 even though the bail petition was moved in connection with Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 11 of 2022 as reflected from the header portion of the order dated 17.12.2015. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that this clearly illustrates that the case records were manipulated/changed much prior to 01.06.2016, i.e., before the date when bail was finally granted to the three accused persons therein, for which only dictation was taken and order was typed by the petitioner in open Court. Therefore, this fact alone clearly establishes that the petitioner could not have acted in conspiracy with other co-accused persons in the larger conspiracy of playing fraud upon this Court since the judicial records were already manipulated/changed much prior to the date when the bail was granted to the accused therein.
17. Adverting to the procedure of passing and uploading the orders/judgments, the learned Senior Counsel Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 11/32 submits that the pre-feeded data is auto-generated, based on the records of the Court provided by the party concerned, which is not accessible or editable by the Steno/P.A./Secretary. The entire filing procedure and generation of the stamp reporting check-list as well as the case status is not under the purview of the petitioner and the instant petitioner neither has any capacity nor any authority to effect any change or manipulation. The body of the order dated 01.06.2016 by which bail was granted to the petitioner also at two different places clearly mentions Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 17 of 2012 which was duly dictated in open Court and is indicative of the fact that arguments and submissions were advanced in connection with Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 17 of 2012.
18. The learned Senior Counsel has also adverted to the charge-sheet submitted by the C.B.I and has submitted that the only allegation against the present petitioner is that when the order of bail was passed on 01.06.2016, the petitioner in the capacity of the P.A. had typed the order sheet and had changed the P.S. Case number in the header portion of the aforesaid order. Further, the investigation has revealed that initially at the time of filing the bail petition, Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 11 of 2012 was mentioned in the said Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 12/32 bail petition, however later on, page no.2 and 5 of the aforesaid bail petition were removed and replaced with new pages showing Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 17 of 2012. During the course of investigation, it was further revealed that the aforesaid pages were substituted and judicial records were manipulated by other co-accused persons. It is also submitted that the copy of the F.I.R annexed with the said bail petition was in respect of the Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 11 of 2012 dated 05.10.2012, however no such F.I.R was ever registered by EOU, Patna against aforesaid three accused persons who had sought bail. Subsequently, the F.I.R No. was changed by pen. Changes/manipulations were also done on the fardbeyan, seizure list and the impugned order therein dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Patna. Therefore the investigating agency had uncovered the larger conspiracy whereby the other accused persons have manipulated the records by producing a forged F.I.R. to obtain wrong stamp reporting check-list and also altered other annexures including the petition itself, in which no role can be ascribed to the petitioner for merely correcting the header portion of the order by which the bail was granted which too was wholly based on the dictation of the main body of the order and the bail petition Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 13/32 including the accompanying annexures.
19. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also emphasized with considerable force that at the relevant time when the order of bail was passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, there was no standing instructions/guidelines from the High Court as to what steps needs to be taken when there is a discrepancy in the pre-feeded/auto-generated data and the records of the case. It is reiterated that the petitioner merely acting bonafidely had corrected the header portion of the aforesaid order, in order to ensure that a defective order may not be uploaded on the website. This act alone is insufficient to fasten the petitioner with criminal liability particularly when there is no material against the petitioner, to establish any wrongdoing or association with the larger conspiracy.
20. It has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner is a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and is working in this Court and therefore the protection under the provision of section 197 Cr. P. C. are applicable to him before proceeding for prosecution. It is the contention of learned Senior Counsel that de-horse such a sanction from competent authority, any prosecution would stand completely vitiated. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 14/32
21. In support of this submission, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of G.C. Manjunath & Ors. vs. Seetaram reported as (2025) 5 SCC 390.
22. In this case, the C.B.I. has filed its counter affidavit wherein after detailing the backgrounds of the present criminal prosecution the respondent has submitted the following under paragraph no.9(iv) of the counter affidavit, which reads as under:-
"9(iv). That, with respect to the averments made in Para 14, 15 and 17 of the application, it is submitted that investigation revealed that Anil Kumar Singh, Secretary to a Hon'ble Justice who typed the order sheet dated 17.12.2015, stated that he hardly notices the case number mentioned in the heading of the order sheet which is auto generated after mentioning the Criminal Miscellaneous Number at the timing of typing of order sheet. On the order sheet dated 17.12.2015 in Criminal Miscellaneous Number 57055/2015 Anil Kumar Singh had typed "call for clear carbon copy of the case diary of Spl. Case No.35 of 2012, arising out of Economic Offences PS Case No. 17 of 2012" whereas the case number was mentioned "arising out of PS Case No. 11 year 2012 Thana ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BIHAR". The accused petitioner has typed the order sheet dated 01.06.2016 in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 15/32 Cr. Misc. No. 57055/2015. He has also changed by typing the case number i.e. PS Case No. 17 year 2012 thana Economic Offences, Bihar on the top of order sheet but actually this case was filed as PS case 11/2012. He admitted about the changing of PS Case No. as 17 year 2012 instead of PS Case number 11 year 2012. Investigation disclosed that, if any anomaly is found with the bail petition, it should have brought to the notice of Hon'ble Bench before changing the PS case number but he failed to do so. Thus the bail of accused persons was granted on 01.06.2016 with the PS Case No. 17 year 2012.
Case Information System (CIS) is maintained in the Hon'ble Patna High Court. CIS runs from the token system to bench of Hon'ble Judge. During investigation, no such tempering was found in the data of High Court's website. Investigation has established that the case number has been changed at the last stage i.e. on the day of writing of the judgement."
23. This Court vide order dated 15.07.2025 had granted time to the learned Sr. CGC appearing on behalf of the respondent - C.B.I. to seek instructions on the specific query from this Court whether sanction for prosecution was sought before proceeding against the petitioner. On the next date of hearing, the learned Sr. CGC for the C.B.I had fairly submitted that no sanction for prosecution was sought before proceeding Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 16/32 against the present petitioner.
24. I have considered the submissions of the parties.
25. The present case revolves around a syndicate operating in order to obtain favourable orders by committing fraud upon this Court. The name of the petitioner has surfaced for the first in the charge-sheet for his alleged role in typing the order and making changes in the header portion of the order. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a public servant working in this Court and therefore, the provisions of section 197 Cr.P.C. would be attracted in the case of the petitioner.
26. It would be gainful to refer to Section 197 of the Cr. P.C., which reads as under:-
"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 [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013]
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 17/32 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:
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 166-A, Section 166-B, Section 354, Section 354-A, Section 354-B, Section 354- C, Section 354-D, Section 370, Section 375, Section 376, [Section 376-A, Section 376-AB, Section 376-C, Section 376-D, Section 376-DA, Section 376-DB] or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 18/32 or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression "Central Government"
occurring therein, the expression "State Government" were substituted.
(3-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3-B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 19/32 (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause(1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.
(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held."
27. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurmeet Kaur vs. Devender Gupta & Anr. reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3761 has reiterated the object and purpose of Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. which protects the public servants from unjustified criminal prosecution for acts done while discharging their official duties and held as under:-
"25. As already noted, the object and purpose of the said provision is to protect officers and officials of the State from unjustified criminal prosecution while they discharge their duties within the scope and ambit of their powers entrusted to them. A reading of Section 197 of the CrPC would indicate that there is a bar for a Court to take cognizance Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 20/32 of such offences which are mentioned in the said provision except with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government when the allegations are made against, inter alia, a public servant.
26. There is no doubt that in the instant case the appellant herein was a public servant but the question is, whether, while discharging her duty as a public servant on the relevant date, there was any excess in the discharge of the said duty which did not require the first respondent herein to take a prior sanction for prosecuting the appellant herein. In this regard, the salient words which are relevant under subsection (1) of Section 197 are "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". Therefore, for the purpose of application of Section 197, a sine qua non is that the public servant is accused of any offence which had been committed by him in "discharge of his official duty". The said expression would clearly indicate that Section 197 of the CrPC would not apply to a case if a public servant is accused of any offence which is de hors or not connected to the discharge of his or her official duty. However, there are a line of judgments which have considered this expression in two different ways which we shall now advert to."
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrik Singh vs. The State of PEPSU reported as AIR 1955 SC 309 had explained the scope of Section 197 of the Cr. P.C and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 21/32 held as under:-
"8. The result of the authorities may thus be summed up : 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."
29. It is a well-established principle of criminal law that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under Section 190 Cr. P.C. subject to the restriction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., when an accused is a public servant.
30. Section 197 Cr. P.C mandates prior sanction from the competent authority before prosecution can proceed, ensuring that public servants are protected from frivolous, vexatious or unjustified criminal prosecution for acts performed in the discharge of their official duties. The exception provided is that the act must be intrinsically connected to the official duty. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 22/32 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3726, has held as under:-
"65. Thus, the legal position that emerges from a conspectus of all the decisions referred to above is that it is not possible to carve out one universal rule that can be uniformly applied to the multivarious facts and circumstances in the context of which the protection under Section 197 Cr. P.C. is sought for. Any attempt to lay down such a homogenous standard would create unnecessary rigidity as regards the scope of application of this provision. In this context, the position of law may be summarized as under:-
(i) The object behind the enactment of Section 197 Cr.PC is to protect responsible public servants against institution of possibly false or vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act in their official capacity. It is to ensure that the public servants are not prosecuted for anything which is done by them in the discharge of their official duties, without any reasonable cause. The provision is in the form of an assurance to the honest and sincere officers so that they can perform their public duties honestly, to the best of their ability Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 23/32 and in furtherance of public interest, without being demoralized.
(ii) The expression "any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty" in Section 197 Cr. PC must neither be construed narrowly nor widely and the correct approach would be to strike a balance between the two extremes. The section should be construed strictly to the extent that its operation is limited only to those acts which are discharged in the "course of duty". However, once it has been ascertained that the act or omission has indeed been committed by the public servant in the discharge of his duty, then a liberal and wide construction must be given to a particular act or omission so far as its "official" nature is concerned.
(iii) It is essential that the Court while considering the question of applicability of Section 197 Cr. PC truly applies its mind to the factual situation before it. This must be done in such a manner that both the aspects are taken care of viz., on one hand, the public servant is protected under Section 197 Cr.PC if the act complained of falls within Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 24/32 his official duty and on the other, appropriate action be allowed to be taken if the act complained of is not done or purported to be done by the public servant in the discharge of his official duty.
(iv) A public servant can only be said to act or purport to act in the discharge of his official duty, if his act is such that it lies within the scope and range of his official duties. The act complained of must be integrally connected or directly linked to his duties as a public servant for the purpose of affording protection under Section 197 Cr.PC. Hence, it is not the duty which requires an examination so much as the "act" itself.
(v) One of the foremost tests which was laid down in this regard was - whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim that, what he does, he does in virtue of his office.
(vi) Later, the test came to be re-
modulated. It was laid down that there must be a reasonable connection between the act done and the discharge of the official duty and the act must bear such relation to the duty such that the accused could lay a reasonable, but Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 25/32 not a pretended or fanciful claim, that his actions were in the course of performance of his duty.
Therefore, the sine qua non for the applicability of this section is that the offence charged, be it one of commission or omission, must be committed by the public servant either in his official capacity or under the color of the office held by him such that there is a direct or reasonable connection between the act and the official duty.
(vii) If in performing his official duty, the public servant acts in excess of his duty, the excess by itself will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from protection under Section 197 Cr.PC if it is found that there existed a reasonable connection between the act done and the performance of his official duty.
(viii) It is the "quality" of the act that must be examined and the mere fact that an opportunity to commit an offence is furnished by the official position would not be enough to attract Section 197 Cr, PC.
(ix) The legislature has thought fit to use two distinct expressions "acting" or "purporting to act".
The latter expression means that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 26/32 even if the alleged act was done under the color of office, the protection under Section 197 CrPC can be given. However, this protection must not be excessively stretched and construed as being limitless. It must be made available only when the alleged act is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act.
(x) There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done and the official duty, nor is it possible to lay down such a rule.
However, a "safe and sure test"
would be to consider if the omission or neglect on the part of the public servant to commit the act complained of would have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duty. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the protection under Section 197 Cr.PC can be granted since there was every connection with the act complained of and the official duty of the public servant.
(xi) The provision must not be abused by public servants to camouflage the commission of a crime under Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 27/32 the supposed color of public office.
The benefit of the provision must not be extended to public officials who try to take undue advantage of their position and misuse the authority vested in them for committing acts which are otherwise not permitted in law. In such circumstances, the acts committed must be considered dehors the duties which a public servant is required to discharge or perform.
(xii) On an application of the tests as aforesaid, if on facts, it is prima facie found that the act or omission for which the accused has been charged has a reasonable connection with the discharge of his official duty, the applicability of Section 197 CrPC cannot be denied." (emphasis supplied)
31. In the case of G.C. Manjunath (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with purported acts of excess while discharging official duties of a police officer, has held as under:-
"37. This Court in Amod Kumar Kanth v. Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy, (2023) 16 SCC 239 held that the State performs its obligations through its officers/public servants and every function performed by a public servant is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 28/32 ultimately aimed at achieving public welfare. Often, their roles involve a degree of discretion. But the exercise of such discretion cannot be separated from the circumstances and timing in which it is exercised or, in cases of omission, when the omission occurs. In such circumstances, the courts must address, whether the officer was acting in the discharge of official duties. It was observed that even when an officer acts under the purported exercise of official powers, they are entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.. This protection exists for a valid reason so that the public servants can perform their duties fearlessly, without constant apprehension of legal action, as long as they act in good faith. While Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. does not explicitly mention the requirement of good faith, such a condition is implied and is expressly included in several other statutes that offer protection to public servants from civil and criminal liability.
38. While dealing with the provisions of Section 197 of the Cr. P.C., read with Section 170 of the Police Act, this Court in D. Devaraja observed that not every offence committed by a police officer automatically gets this protection. The safeguard under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 170 of the Police Act is limited. It applies only if the alleged act is reasonably connected to the officer's official duties. The law does not offer protection if the official role is used as a mere excuse to commit wrongful acts. However, it was held that the protection of prior sanction will be available Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 29/32 when there is a reasonable connection between the act and their duty. While enunciating when the protection of prior sanction will be applicable, this Court held that even if a police officer exceeds his official powers, as long as there is a reasonable connection between the act and his duty, they are still entitled to the protection requiring prior sanction. Excessiveness alone does not strip them of this safeguard. The language of both Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. and Section 170 of the Police Act is clear that sanction is required not only for acts done in the discharge of official duty as well as for the acts purported to be done in the discharge of official duty and/or acts done "under colour of or in excess of such duty or authority". Sanction becomes mandatory if there is a reasonable connection between the act and the officer's official duties, even if the officer acted improperly or exceeded his authority. Therefore, if a complaint against a police officer involves actions reasonably related to his official role, the Court cannot take cognisance unless sanction from the appropriate Government has been obtained under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 170 of the Police Act...."
...
41. In light of the aforesaid judgements, the guiding principle governing the necessity of prior sanction stands well crystallised. The pivotal inquiry is whether the impugned act is reasonably connected to the discharge of official duty. If the act is wholly unconnected or manifestly devoid of any nexus to the official functions of the public Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 30/32 servant, the requirement of sanction is obviated. Conversely, where there exists even a reasonable link between the act complained of and the official duties of the public servant, the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 170 of the Police Act is attracted. In such cases, prior sanction assumes the character of a sine qua non, regardless of whether the public servant exceeded the scope of authority or acted improperly while discharging his duty." (emphasis supplied).
32. In the present case also, it is evident that the allegation against the petitioner is directly attributable as having been done in discharge of his official duties. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Stenographer/Personal Assistant in this Court, and therefore taking dictation and typing the orders was a central part of his official duties. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had altered/changed the header portion of the judicial order by which the bail was granted on 01.06.2016 by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
33. It is pertinent to note that as per the prosecution case, the other accused persons in connivance with each other had altered the judicial records and even substituted the annexures appended with the bail petition. In the opinion of this Court, there is no material on record to fasten the petitioner with the aforesaid larger conspiracy of committing fraud upon Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 31/32 this Court which was running like a syndicate. Pertinently, the only thread connecting the petitioner is that he had made a change in the P.S. case on the header portion of the aforesaid order, which was done by the petitioner only because of the fact that unlawful manipulations / substitutions had already been carried out by the other accused persons in the physical records of the case, save and except the above, there is no material available on record to connect the petitioner with the larger conspiracy of other co-accused persons.
34. It is trite law that even a mere excess or overreach in the performance of official duty does not, by itself, disentitle a public servant from the statutory protection mandated by law. The safeguard of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be disregarded since it is a protection afforded to public servants from unreasonable, vexatious or frivolous prosecutions. Admittedly, no such sanction for prosecution was ever sought, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, before proceeding against him. The Magistrate could not have therefore taken cognizance in absence of sanction from competent authority owing to the restriction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.
35. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48026 of 2021 dt.31-07-2025 32/32 impugned order taking cognizance is not sustainable so far as the present petitioner is concerned.
36. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance dated 08.07.2021 passed by the learned Exclusive Magistrate, C.B.I, Patna in C.B.I. Case No. RC 1(S)/17 is quashed qua the present petitioner.
(Sandeep Kumar, J) pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE N/A. Uploading Date 31.07.2025 Transmission Date 31.07.2025