IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.15814 of 2011 Chandra Prakash Jha Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr ---------------------------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Gauri Shankar Thakur, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.P.P. ------------------------- 2 07.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State. Petitioner has preferred instant petition to quash the order dated 30.12.2010 passed by Md. Salim, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui in Complaint Case No. 966(c) of 2010 whereby and where under petitioner has been directed to face trial for an offence punishable under Section 354/ 504 of the IPC. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that whatever allegation happens to be, all are palpably false and the same has been intentionally levelled against the petitioner to teach him a lesson on account of arrest of father-in-law of complainant, who was arrested in accordance with Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. and for that referred Annexure-4 Series (true copy of Laxmipur Thana Sanha No.88 dated 05.07.2010) Also submitted that after being released on bail on 05.07.2010, the father-in-law of complainant, Kanchan Devi after projecting her as complainant and levelling false and frivolous allegation got this case filed. Also submitted that petitioner had gone to the place of occurrence in due discharge of his public duty as a result of which no prosecution should be allowed to proceed against him as the same happens to be barred under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and for that referred (2011) 1 Eastern Criminal Cases, page-29. So submitted that 2 order of cognizance is fit to be quashed. The learned A.P.P. opposed and submitted that for the purpose of taking of cognizance, prima facie case has to be traced out which is itself evident from the order impugned. Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is available to a government Servant to have a shield against false and malicious prosecution at the hands of unscrupulous litigant who became frustrated from the action taken during course of due discharge of his duty. By having Annexure- 4, presence of petitioner at the P.O. is itself certified. Apprehension of father-in-law of petitioner is also evident from Annexure-4 Series. Though Annexure-4 Series speaks a lot to justify apprehension of father-in-law of complainant purported to be in accordance with Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. but no document is available / placed at the hands of petitioner to support the requirements which could justify apprehension of delinquent in accordance with Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. I do not want to proceed furthermore on this score, however the same has been dealt with only to meet the argument made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner on this score. Now, coming to the facts in hand, the nature of allegation does not justify the contention of the petitioner that it was committed in due discharge of his duty or he was legally so entitled for. As such, I do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the order impugned, accordingly, petition is rejected. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)