Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010108622024 2025:GAU-AS:12190 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./632/2024 ABDUS SALAM MIAH S/O EMAN ALI, R/O VILL- BOYZER ALGA, PT-III, P.O.-NAYERALGA, P.S.- BILASIPARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783348 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:RATAN CH. SUTRADHAR S/O LT. DAYAL CH. SUTRADHAR R/O WARD NO. 6 GOALTULI P.O.-GOALPARA P.S.-GOALPARA DIST- GOALPARA PIN-78310 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, MR. A W MONDAL,MR K ISLAM,MR A ALIM SK,MS. N NASRIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. M DEKA (R-2),MD S HOQUE (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA For the Petitioner : Mr. A. Alim Sk., Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. K. Baishya, Addl. P.P Date of Judgment & Order : 08.09.2025 Page No.# 2/8 JUDGMENT & ORDER 1. Heard Mr. A. Alim Sk, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Abdus Salam Miah, praying for quashing of the proceedings of PRC Case No. 1290/2023 arising out of Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 230/2023 under Sections 166/468/471/506 of the Indian Penal Code presently pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bilasipara. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are that on 21.08.2023, one Ratan Ch. Sutradhar, Block Elementary Education Officer, Bilasipara had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Bilasipara Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner Abdus Salam Miah, who is the Head Teacher of 2039 No. Balargudam L.P. School at village Boyzer Alga under Bilasipara Police Station in the district of Dhubri had issued a certificate to Rohima Khatun showing the name of Nosor Uddin Khan as her father. However, when the Head Teacher was directed to produce the Admission Register of the school to prove that Nosor Uddin Khan was the father of Rohima Khatun, he failed to produce the Admission Register before the Gauhati High Court. It is also submitted in the FIR that the said FIR was lodged as per the directions of the Gauhati High Court issued by order dated 26.05.2023 passed WP(C) No. 118/2020. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 230/2023 was registered and investigation was initiated. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet Page No.# 3/8 No. 316/2023 was laid against the petitioner under Sections 166/468/471/506 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that since the petitioner is a Headmaster and he had issued the certificate in question in discharge of his official duty, hence, the provision of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is applicable to his case. He further submits that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bilasipara could not have taken the cognizance before previous sanction of the Government under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, he submits that that the taking of cognizance by the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bilasipara by order dated 14.09.2023 against the petitioner under Sections 166/468/471/506 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the school certificate dated 21.06.2018 was issued by the petitioner to Rohima Khatun on the basis of the list of students with their father name of the year 1996 wherein at Serial No. 173, the name of Rohima Khatun appears and her father name was mentioned as Nosor Uddin Khan. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR lodged by the informant does not disclose any offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. He further submits that no ingredients of the offence under Sections 166/468/471/506 of the Indian Penal Code have been made out against the petitioner in this case. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited following rulings:- (i) State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal and ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; (ii) State of Orissa Vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew reported in (2004) 8 SCC 40; (iii) A Sreenivasa Reddy Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Anr. reported in 2023 (0) Page No.# 4/8 Supreme (SC) 989; (iv) State of Karnataka Vs. L Muniswamy reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699; 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the proceeding on the ground that the Trial Court taking the cognizance of the offence under Sections 166/468/471/506 of the Indian Penal Code after finding sufficient materials against the petitioner on record. He further submits that the FIR in this case was lodged as per the directions of the High Court passed on 26.05.2023 in WP(C) No. 118/2020. Hence, he submits that it may not be proper on the part of this Court to interfere with the proceedings of the aforesaid case in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He further submits that during the investigation, sufficient materials were found against the petitioner and, therefore, this is not a case which warrants interfere by this Court. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record including the scanned copy of the PRC Case No. 1290/2023 as well as scanned copy of the connected case diary. 9. Though, the FIR dated 21.06.2023 filed by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Bilasipara against the present petitioner has been filed as per the directions of this Court by order dated 26.05.2023 in WP(C) No. 118/2020 (Rohima Khatun Vs. Union of India and ors.). However, on perusal of the FIR, it appears that the only accusations made against the petitioner that he issued a certificate to Rohima Khatun showing the name of Nosor Uddin Khan as her father in the said certificate and he failed to produce the Admission Register of the School to prove the said fact. This accusation, in the considered opinion of Page No.# 5/8 this Court, in itself does not constitute any offence as no ingredient of Sections 166/468/471/506 of the Indian Penal Code appears to be made out from the contents of the FIR. 10. In the case of “State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal and ors.” (supra), the Apex Court has observed that where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value are accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, it may be a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 to quash such an FIR. 11. In the instant case, it also appears that the petitioner is working as a Headmaster of a Government School, therefore, he falls within the definition of “Public Servant” under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. It also appears that the certificate issued to Rohima Khatun by the petitioner was issued in his capacity as the Head Teacher of 2039 No. Balargudam L.P. School on receipt of an application praying for issuance of such a certificate by the father of the Rohima Khatun, namely, Nosor Uddin Khan. As such, the act of issuance of certificate by the petitioner was in discharge of his official duty. 12. Under such circumstances, unless there is a previous sanction of the Government, there is a bar for the Court to take cognizance of offence alleged against him. 13. The Apex Court in the case of “State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew” (supra) has observed as follows:- “7. The protection given under Section 197 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 Page No.# 6/8 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 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 of 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 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. 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 any such rule. 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 this question is in the affirmative, it may be said that such act was committed by the public servant while acting in the discharge Page No.# 7/8 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 does not get immediately attracted on institution of the complaint case”. 14. From the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court, it appears that protection given under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants is to afford adequate protection to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in the discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause. The power to accord sanction for prosecution is on the Government servant, however, in the instant case, no sanction was obtained and the Trial Court took the cognizance of offences under Sections 166/468/471/506 against the petitioner without any such sanction, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that taking cognizance by the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 14.09.2023 passed in PRC Case No. 1290/2023 is bad in law. 15. The Apex Court has also observed in the case of “State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal and ors.” (supra), where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which criminal proceeding is constituted to institution and continuance of the proceedings), the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be exercised in such cases to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case also, the legal bar of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. could not be overcome by the prosecution side. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that as in the instant case, the Prosecuting Agency has not obtained previous Page No.# 8/8 sanction of the Government as was required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and as bare perusal of the FIR, no prima facie offence is constituted against the present petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be invoked for quashing the proceeding of PRC Case No. 1290/2023 to prevent the ends of justice. 17. Accordingly, the proceeding of PRC Case No. 1290/2023 is hereby quashed and this criminal petition is accordingly allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant