1 2025:CGHC:2307 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1000 of 2018 Shailesh Kumar Baghel S/o Samarjit Singh Baghel Aged About 45 Years R/o Forest Range OfÏcer Forest Range Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Accused ), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Vikas Singh S/o M. B. Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Main Road, Kargi Road, P. S. Kota, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, as well as Mr. Amit Verma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No.2/State. 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 20.04.2018 in the Criminal Revision No. 16/2018 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), arising out of order of framing of charge under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 671/2017 dated 20.12.2017. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the respondent No.1/complainant filed an application under section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) for direction to the respondent No.2 to registered an FIR under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC against the petitioner before the learned JMFC, Kota, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). It is stated in the application that on 24.11.2017, the respondent No.1/complainant was on his way from Kota to Gobripat. He noticed a gathering of people near family Dhaba. On stopping by he found while digging the road a python had got injured by JCB machine. Petitioner/accused had reached the spot for its treatment. He made comment that the condition of python had become like that of Ajit Jogi. When respondent no.1/complainant took exception to that comment, the petitioner/accused got incensed and by using choicest of expletives threatened him of dire consequences. He also threatened apparent of implicating in false case and getting him jailed. Respondent no.1/complainant filed an application before respondent No.2 for registration of FIR. On this application Police found conducted the 3 preliminary enquiry and its report to SP Bilaspur the alleged incident was prima facie found to be corroborated. However no offence was registered against the petitioner. The learned JMFC took the application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and vide its order dated 15.12.2017 directed the respondent No.2 to submit a report. The respondent No.2 submitted the report before the learned JMFC. The learned JMFC heard the argument on the application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C and report submitted by the respondent No.2. The learned JMFC vide its order dated 20.12.2017 did not find reasonable to exercise the power vested under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. rather considered the said application as one under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.. The learned JMFC recorded the statement of the respondent No.1/complainant and registered criminal case under Section 294 and 506 of the IPC. The case is presently registered as Criminal Complaint No. 671/2017. The learned JMFC took cognizance of the offence and directed issuance of bailable warrant against the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused appeared before the learned JMFC and obtained bail on 05.01.2018. The petitioner/accused being aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2017, filed a criminal revision under section 397 and 399 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned ASJ on various grounds including a ground that the petitioner/accused is a government servant and the alleged offence is purportedly happen in connection with discharge of his ofÏcial duty, hence, without obtaining sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., the cognizance cannot be taken by the learned JMFC. The revision was registered 4 as Criminal Revision No. 16/2019. The learned ASJ heard the argument on the revision filed by the petitioner/accused and vide order dated 04.04.2018 partly allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to the learned JMFC. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint of alleged incident was lodged by the respondent No.1/complainant was made in order to seek vengeance against the petitioner/accused, the petitioner/accused made a Police report against the respondent No.1/complainant for registering FIR for voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant. The learned ASJ committed error of law and fact in holding that there is no connection of the alleged offence with discharge of the ofÏcial duty of the petitioner/accused. It is submitted that the protection is given under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to the public servant to prevent them roping in false and frivolous criminal case. It the finding of the learned ASJ is allowed to stand, it would make the provision redundant. The learned ASJ was pleased to allow the revision in part and remanded the matter back to the learned JMFC therefore it was not incumbent upon the learned ASJ to gave a positive finding on merits of the provision of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. holding that sanction is not needed. The learned ASJ ought to have left this aspect of the matter to be decided by the learned JMFC. Hence the 5 finding recorded by the learned ASJ is liable to be set aside in this score only. Looking from any angle the finding recorded by the learned ASJ cannot stand in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the repsondent No.2/State opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 20.04.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 16/2018 by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), arising out of order dated 20.12.2017 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 671/2017, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. From the perusal of the records and submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the alleged incident took place during discharge of the ofÏcial duty of the petitioner/accused, thus, the present case appears to be a fit case for interference by this Court for exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC. The impugned order dated 20.04.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 16/2018 by learned 6th Additional Sessions 6 Judge, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), arising out of order dated 20.12.2017 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 671/2017, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), and all consequential proceedings arising thereof is hereby quashed. 8. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar