1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.130/2010 Petitioner :- Shri Rajnikant s/o Daluram Borele, age : 32 years, Occupation : agriculturist, R/o Pandharkawda, Taluka – Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal. ...Versus... Respondents :- 1. The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Pandharkawda, Taluka – Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal. 2. Shri Abdul Rahman, age : adult, occupation : Principal, Women Police Training Centre, Solapur (M.S.). ................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................ [Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, Adv. for petitioner] [Shri D.B. Patel, APP for respdt. No.1] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 27.04.2010 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharkawada in Criminal Revision No.74/2009, confirming the order dated 1.10.2009, made by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kelapur (Court No.3) in Criminal Complaint Case No.3126/2008. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the orders made by the Courts below are required to be set aside since no sanction under sanction 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was at all required for instituting the private prosecution against the respondent – Superintendent of Police who could not have taken action against the petitioner which 2 is not warranted by law. According to him, the action not being warranted by law clearly falls outside the purview of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Per contra, learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 supported the impugned orders. 4. I have gone through the private complaint filed by the petitioner – complainant so also the revisional order. Upon perusal of the complaint as well as the revisional order and having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find that as a Superintendent of Police the respondent had in his official capacity directed to take action in which eventually the petitioner came to be involved. Whatever actions taken by him were obviously acting as Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal and in his capacity all directions were issued by him in which eventually the petitioner was found to be involved rightly or wrongly. Even assuming that the petitioner was not rightly found involved but the cover on the actions taken by the Superintendent of Police during the official course of business cannot be taken away. The action taken by him remains an action taken during the course of official duties and therefore, he is fully protected under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition and I find that the revisional order shows application of mind to the facts in issue. In the result, this Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that observations made in this order are limited to the decision in the present matter. JUDGE ssw