HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPUR Cr.M.P.No.235of2QOS Applicant Smt. Khursheed Ahmad, W7o late Meer Ghuiam Qureshi, aged about 27 years, Ladies Constabje, Biiaspur, District" BiSaspur, ^.G.) Respon'dents 2. Versi/s Smt. Rablya Begum, W/o Haider Aii, aged about 45 years, R/o Near Mandi Takhatpur, Tahsil-Taknatpur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) State of ChhaSlsgarh, through Dlstrlct Magistrate, Biiaspur, Dlstrict-Biiaspur, (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRJMjNAL PROCECURE (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Present: Shri Sunil Sahu, counsei for the appticant. -Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawai, Panel iav.'yer for the Stats/respondent No.1 Orai Order (Passed on 10th July, This petltion is dlrected against the order dated 16.42008 passed by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, FT.C.,.Bil.aspur in Criminai Revision No. 61/2008 afflrmlng the order dated 21.8.2007 passed by Judicial yaglstrate FSrst Class, Bllaspur, in Complaint Case No. 215/2006 whereby the iearned Judlcla! Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur rejected an objection of the applicant filed under Sectlon 197 of the Cods of Crimlnai Procedure, 1973 (in short, •Cr.P.C.') 2. The order Js chailenged on the ground that the learned courts beiow have falied to appreciate that on the date of.incident the applicant Is on duty and the act of the appiicant falls within the definition of a public servant and before reg'istering the offence, sanction of the State Govemment has necessary. 3, i have heard. learned counsel for the appilcant.and learned Pane! lawyer for the State and perused the orders impugned. -2.- 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a pubJlc sen/ant and worklng as Constabie and according to the complalnt offence has been committed while she was discharglng her offlciai duty. 4. According to the order of the courts below, compiaint for the oftence punishabie under Section 323/34, IPC has been reglstered against the applicant along with another co-accused. According to order impugned, the appiicant, who is iady constabte, assauited the complalnant and committed robbery of Rs» 5000/- and dishonor her. The act of assaulting, robbery and dishonor of a woman does not s.quareiy fali within discharge of official duty of the appllcant, therefore, no previous sanctlon under section 197, Cr.P,C« Is requjred for prosecution ofthe appiicant, 5» Consequently, the petltion has no tbrce and thesame Is liable to be dlsmlssed and it Is hereby dismissed at the stage of admisslon, B/- Sd7- T.P. Sharma Judge