Jharkhand High Court
Jitendra Kumar Pradhan Aged About 31 ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 25 August, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:25969]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.425 of 2025
------
Jitendra Kumar Pradhan aged about 31 Years, S/o Jagabandu Pradhan, R/o Village- Chadeyapalli, P.O.- Pancharida, P.S.- Sarankul, District- Nyaygarh, Odisha.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradyumna Poddar, Advocate
Mr. Mukul Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.24 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.124 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioner.
3. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner is a personnel of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and on the alleged date of occurrence, he was a general duty constable of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).
4. The brief fact of the case is that because of naxalites' movement in the place of occurrence locality, Battalion of Central Reserve Police Force was 1 Cr. M.P. No.425 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:25969] deployed in the locality of the place of occurrence and the petitioner was a part of that Central Reserve Police Force and in a joint operation with the local police, the petitioner was deployed in the locality as a part of the team. In the night of 19.03.2020, the naxalites fired upon a unit of the Battalion of that Central Reserve Police Force and the firing was returned by the Jawans of the Battalions of that Central Reserve Police Force. The exchange of firing continued for 10 to 15 minutes. On seeing that the CRPF team is dominating the naxalites, the naxalites fled away, taking advantage of the night. A meeting was called by the Commandant of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) along with the Superintendent of Police, Khunti and other connected police officers and it was decided that in the morning at around 4:00 AM to 4:30 AM, a joint team of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) QAT force, Khunti and QAT force Murhu will be sent as reinforcement. A motorcycle borne police and security forces party proceeded at 4:40 AM and another team was sent at 5:30 AM. There was a noise of 2-3 rounds of firing. The information was received by the informant-in-charge of 94-Battalion Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) that a person has sustained injury in firing. The person was shifted to hospital and upon enquiry, the informant came to know that the petitioner has fired upon the injured and the reason for firing is that at about 5:45 AM from the side of Kumardih, two persons riding a motorcycle at high speed were going towards school. The petitioner indicated the riders of the motorcycle to stop. The riders of the motorcycle stopped their motorcycle and when the petitioner reached near their motorcycle, the riders of the motorcycle threw something kept in a sack and wanted to flee way. The petitioner and others tried to stop them but they pushed the petitioner and fled away. They were directed to stop by 2 Cr. M.P. No.425 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:25969] being told loudly. It appeared to the petitioner and the force accompanying him that some explosive substances and arms have been kept in the sack. In the meantime, there was a sound of firing, hence, it appeared to the petitioner that the persons riding motorcycle are naxalites. Hence, in response to such firing, the petitioner in his self-defence also fired upon them and the injured sustained bullet injury on being fired by the petitioner. Later on, the injured was treated by the Doctor. Police registered Murhu P.S. Case No.24 of 2020 on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant and took up investigation of the case. The sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was denied by the Directorate of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF); consequent upon, the recommendation of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) not to grant such sanction was approved by the Hon'ble Minister for Home Affairs of the Government of India. Police after investigation of the case, submitted charge-sheet and the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti vide order dated 06.06.2023 considered that the deceased Roshan Horo has no criminal antecedent. No suspicious material was recovered from the possession of the deceased. Hence, the act committed by the petitioner was beyond the duty of the petitioner and basing upon the same, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioner; even in the absence of the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G.C. Manjunath & Others 3 Cr. M.P. No.425 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:25969] vs. Seetaram reported in (2025) 5 SCC 390, para-41 of which reads as under:-
"41. In light of the aforesaid judgments, 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 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 197CrPC 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) and submits that it is a settled principle of law that where there exists even a reasonable link between the act complained of and the official duties of the public servant, the protective umbrella under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
and Section 170 of the Police Act is attracted.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Akhilesh Prasad vs. Union Territory of Mizoram reported in (1981) 2 SCC 150 and submits that the Central Reserve Police Force (CRFP) squarely falls within the expression of "Armed Forces of the Union" as used in Section 197(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti has committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance, even in the absence of sanction for prosecution; by holding that the act of the petitioner was beyond the domain of official duty of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand defends the impugned order passed by the learned Sub- 4 Cr. M.P. No.425 of 2025
[2025:JHHC:25969] Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti and submits that there is no illegality in the same. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sankaran Moitra vs. Sadhna Das & Another reported in (2006) 4 SCC 584 had the occasion to consider the sanction of prosecution required in connection with police officer and in the facts of that case where the petitioner being the police officer used excessive force in course of duty in purported performance of his duty, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that there was requirement for sanction of prosecution of the accused person of that case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India summarised the principles regarding the sanction of prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the case of Devinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab through CBI reported in (2016) 12 SCC 87, para-39 of which reads as under:-
"39. The principles emerging from the aforesaid decisions are summarised hereunder:
39.1. Protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his duty honestly and to the best of his ability to further public duty.
However, authority cannot be camouflaged to commit crime.
39.2. Once act or omission has been found to have been committed by public servant in discharging his duty it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned. Public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent Section 197 CrPC has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner.
39.3. Even in facts of a case when public servant has exceeded in his duty, if there is reasonable connection it will not deprive him of protection under Section 197 CrPC. There cannot be a universal rule to determine 5 Cr. M.P. No.425 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:25969] whether there is reasonable nexus between the act done and official duty nor is it possible to lay down such rule.
39.4. In case the assault made is intrinsically connected with or related to performance of official duties, sanction would be necessary under Section 197 CrPC, but such relation to duty should not be pretended or fanciful claim. The offence must be directly and reasonably connected with official duty to require sanction. It is no part of official duty to commit offence. In case offence was incomplete without proving, the official act, ordinarily the provisions of Section 197 CrPC would apply.
39.5. 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.
39.6. 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 the appellate court. It may arise at inception itself. There is no requirement that the accused must wait till charges are framed.
39.7. 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.
39.8. 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 the accused to place material during the course of trial for showing what his duty was. The accused has the right to lead evidence in support of his case on merits.
39.9. In some cases 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." (Emphasis supplied)
9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was a member of Armed Forces being 6 Cr. M.P. No.425 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:25969] the Central Reserve Police Force deployed at the place of occurrence in discharge of his official duty and his duty was to counter the naxalites who were a challenge to the law and order situation in the locality. The undisputed fact also remains that the petitioner fired in his self-defence consequent upon a firing made by the injured person, who later on died but the firing made by the injured and his associates who fled away from the place of occurrence leaving injured alone, did not hit the petitioner or any other member of the forces deployed at the place of occurrence, whereas the firing made by the petitioner hit the deceased. The undisputed fact also remains that out of two persons who were riding the motorcycle, the other person fled away.
10. Under such circumstances, the observation made by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in its order dated 06.06.2023 passed in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.24 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.124 of 2023 that the act of the petitioner was outside his duty, is a perverse one, hence, not sustainable in law. In view of the discussions made above, it cannot be said that it was a camouflage on the part of the petitioner to cause injury to the injured person, for some motive. The undisputed fact also remains that the petitioner and the injured person who later on died, were not known to each other. There was no motive on the part of the petitioner to cause any harm to the victim except for the purpose of self-defence.
11. In view of the discussions made about, the order dated 06.06.2023 by which the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khunti has taken cognizance of the offence, even though the sanction for prosecution as is required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was refused, is not 7 Cr. M.P. No.425 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:25969] sustainable in law. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.24 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.124 of 2023 be quashed and set aside.
12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.24 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.124 of 2023 is quashed and set aside.
13. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
14. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A. No.2101 of 2025 is disposed of being infructuous.
15. In view of the disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 20.03.2025 is vacated.
16. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 25th of August, 2025 AFR/ Saroj 8 Cr. M.P. No.425 of 2025