[2026:JHHC:9565] 1 Cr. M.P. No.109 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.109 of 2025 ------ Nageshwar Mahto, Aged about 47 years, Son of Sri Laxman Mahto, Resident of – Village Bariyarpur, Post Office: Chhando, Police Station: Nimiyaghat, District: Giridih, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Prashant Upadhyay, aged about – 25 years, S/o Pramod Upadhyay, R/o Village- Banpur, P.O. & P.S. – Latehar, District- Latehar, Jharkhand … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Anand No.(2), Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Addl,P.P. For the OP No.2 : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party No.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 14 of 2024 including the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with [2026:JHHC:9565] 2 Cr. M.P. No.109 of 2025 Complaint Case No. 14 of 2024 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on the date of occurrence, was deputed at the place of occurrence for the purpose of checking of vehicles. The complainant who was riding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle of his friend was instructed to stop at about 5.30 P.M. The complainant stopped. The petitioner suddenly ordered the constable to beat the complainant; at which the constable beat the complainant with a stick. Thereafter, the petitioner pushed the complainant to get down from the motorcycle and beat him with his hand. Other police personnels also beat the complainant with their hands and sticks. They took the complainant to the police station and beat the complainant there also. Because of the beating, the complainant sustained injury on various parts of the body and the capacity of the ear of the complainant to hear has diminished. The complainant was also beaten after making him to remove his jacket and he was locked in the Hazat of the police station and he was released only at 10:30 PM on the same day. On the basis of the complainant, the statement of the complainant on the solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar took cognizance of the offence as already indicated above. [2026:JHHC:9565] 3 Cr. M.P. No.109 of 2025 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 vs. Seetaram reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 582 and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur vs. State of Mysore reported in AIR 1963 SC 849 and also in the case of D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain reported (2020) 7 SCC 695 wherein it has consistently been held that a police officer in the course of performing official duties, exceeds the bounds of such duty, the protective shield under the relevant statutory provisions continues to apply, provided there exists a reasonable nexus between the impugned act and the discharge of official functions and it has categorically been held that transgression or overstepping of authority does not, by itself, suffice to displace the statutory safeguard of requiring prior government sanction before prosecuting the public servant concerned. In the fact of that case as it was evident that the actions attributed to the accused persons emanated from the discharge of their official duties; so, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that 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 and held that the cognizance taken in that case by the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was vitiated. Hence, it is submitted that as in this case also, admittedly the occurrence took place in the discharge of the official duty of the [2026:JHHC:9565] 4 Cr. M.P. No.109 of 2025 petitioner as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, conducting the checking of vehicles, along with other police personnel, in discharge of his official duty; so, without the sanction from the competent authority as envisaged under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar has committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the same is not sustainable in law. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that it is the admitted case of the complainant that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was discharging his official duty as the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, deputed for checking the vehicles. It is the admitted case of the complainant that first the petitioner - Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police ordered his subordinate constable to beat the complainant. So, it is evident that the actions attributed to the petitioner emanate from the discharge of his official duty. The subsequent allegation is that the complainant was taken to the police station and was kept in the Hazat; these all goes to show that the [2026:JHHC:9565] 5 Cr. M.P. No.109 of 2025 alleged acts committed by the petitioner emanate from discharge of his official duty. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that mere excess or overreaching performance of the official duty by the petitioner will not negate the petitioner from the safeguard of obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority, as envisaged under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar has committed a grave illegality in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code without the sanction of the prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the entire criminal proceedings including the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Complaint Case No. 14 of 2024 is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Complaint Case No. 14 of 2024 is quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 10. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 02nd of April, 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 07/04/2026