Uma Shankar vs State Of Bihar and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13061 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC010446462016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-236 Year-2015 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE
District- Nawada
======================================================
Uma Shankar, SHO Akbarpur Police Station, Akbarpur, District-Nawada,
At present Section Officer, Prosecution and R.T.I. Cell, Nawada Police
Office, Nawada.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Daulti Devi, Wife of Karu Chaudhary, Resident of Village-Lodipur, Police
Station-Akbarpur, District-Nawada.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabi Bhushan Prasad No. 1, APP
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-11-2026
The present petition has been filed by the
petitioner for quashing of the order dated 08.01.2016
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nawada in Criminal
Revision Case No.41 of 2015 and further, for quashing of
the order dated 02.05.2015 passed in Complaint Case
No.236 of 2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st
Class, Nawada, whereby the learned jurisdictional Magistrate
has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under
sections 323, 403 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13061 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
2/8
short ‘IPC’) against the petitioner and other co-accused
persons. A revision was filed against this order, which was
dismissed through Cr. Rev. No.41 of 2015 vide its order
dated 08.01.2016.
2. The prosecution case, as stated in the complaint
petition filed by the complainant, Daulti Devi, is that on
20.02.2015, three persons, namely, Brahmchari, Raghubir
Yadav and Mahesh Dangi, came to her house and invited her
husband, Karu Chaudhary, to have fish and bread. When her
husband did not return for about two hours, the complainant
went in search of him and allegedly found the aforesaid
persons assaulting her husband with a danda at Village
Pachrukhi. On raising an alarm, the Officer-in-Charge of
Akbarpur Police Station arrived at the place of occurrence
and brought her husband to the police station. The
complainant also followed them to the police station.
2.1. It has further been alleged that when the
complainant requested the police to release her husband, the
petitioner, who was posted as the Officer-in-Charge of
Akbarpur Police Station at the relevant time, caught and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13061 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
3/8
twisted her hand, abused her in filthy language and ousted
her from the police station premises by pulling her hair. It
has also been alleged that her bag containing Rs. 5,000/-
fell down during the occurrence, which was allegedly taken
by the petitioner. Subsequently, her husband was sent to jail
in connection with a criminal case.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was
discharging his official duties as the Officer-in-Charge of
Akbarpur Police Station. It is further submitted that the
husband of the complainant was an accused in Akbarpur P.S.
Case No. 26 of 2015 instituted on 12.02.2015 on the basis
of a written report submitted by one Birendra Kumar
Swarnkar regarding theft of gold and silver ornaments from
his jewellery shop. During investigation, on the basis of the
confessional statement of a co-accused, namely, Sanjay
Rajbanshi, the name of Karu Chaudhary surfaced and stolen
ornaments were allegedly recovered from his house.
4. It has, therefore, been submitted that the
present complaint was instituted as a counterblast to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13061 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
4/8
criminal action taken against the husband of the
complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that the petitioner, being a police officer, was
discharging his official duties and the allegations relate to the
manner in which he dealt with the complainant and her
husband at the police station. It is contended that the
learned Magistrate has failed to consider the protection
available to the petitioner under Section 197 of the CrPC
before taking cognizance.
5. Learned APP opposed the quashing petition
filed by the petitioner.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State and perused the materials
available on record.
7. In support of the submission, reliance has been
placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
S.K. Zutshi and another v. Bimal Debnath and another,
(2004) 8 SCC 31 , as well as State of Orissa v. Ganesh
Chandra Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40 .
8. The principle relating to Section 197 of the CrPC

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13061 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
5/8
is well settled. The protection under the said provision is
available when the act complained of has a reasonable
connection with the discharge of official duty. The test is not
merely whether the public servant acted strictly within the
limits of his authority, but whether the act complained of
was reasonably connected with his official duty. Even where
an excess of authority is alleged, the protection may still be
available if there is a reasonable nexus between the act and
the official duty.
9. In S.K. Zutshi v. Bimal Debnath (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope of protection
available to a public servant under Section 197 of the Code.
Similarly, in State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained that the
object of Section 197 of the Code is to protect public
servants from vexatious criminal proceedings in respect of
acts done while acting or purporting to act in discharge of
official duty. The protection is available where the alleged act
is reasonably connected with such duty.
10. In the present case, it is not in dispute that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13061 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
6/8
the petitioner was posted as the Officer-in-Charge of
Akbarpur Police Station at the relevant time. The allegations
in the complaint relate to the events which allegedly took
place at the police station when the complainant approached
the petitioner seeking the release of her husband, who had
been brought to the police station in connection with a
criminal case.
11. Thus, the allegations have to be examined in
the background of the official position held by the petitioner
and the circumstances in which the alleged occurrence took
place. The petitioner was dealing with the custody of a
person suspected to be involved in a criminal case and was
performing his duties as the Officer-in-Charge of the police
station. The alleged conduct, even if assumed to involve an
excess in the manner of dealing with the complainant,
requires examination in the light of the protection
contemplated under Section 197 of the Code.
12. It is true that Section 197 does not provide
blanket protection to a public servant for every act
committed during the period of his service. An act having no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13061 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
7/8
reasonable connection with official duty cannot claim
protection merely because the person concerned holds a
public office. However, where the act complained of arises
out of and is reasonably connected with the performance of
official functions, the requirement of previous sanction
cannot be ignored.
13. In the present case, the learned Magistrate,
while taking cognizance vide order dated 02.05.2015, does
not appear to have considered the question of applicability of
Section 197 of the Code, particularly in view of the fact that
the petitioner was admittedly discharging his duties as the
Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station. The
question of sanction was a relevant consideration before
proceeding against the petitioner.
14. This Court is conscious of the fact that the
protection under Section 197 cannot be extended merely on
the ground that the accused is a public servant. However,
the object of the provision is to ensure that a public servant
is not subjected to criminal prosecution without the requisite
sanction in respect of acts having a reasonable connection

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13061 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
8/8
with the discharge of official duty.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court finds that the order taking
cognizance against the petitioner, without consideration of
the statutory protection available under Section 197 of the
Code, cannot be sustained in law.
16. Accordingly, the order dated 08.01.2016
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nawada in Criminal
Revision Case No.41 of 2015 and the order dated
02.05.2015 passed in Complaint Case No.236 of 2015 by
learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Nawada with all its
consequential proceedings are, hereby, quashed and set
aside qua petitioner.
17. The present petition stands allowed.
18. Let a copy of this order be communicated to
the learned trial court forthwith.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.11.2026
Transmission Date 04.11.2026