IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22265 of 2011 Raman Kumar Chaudhary son of Bharat Lal Chaudhary, R/O Village-Basuham, P.S. Bahera, Distt-Darbhanga. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Feku Yadav S/O late Kishore Yadav, R/O Village-Chand, Distt- Kaimur (Bhabhua), Opposite party. For petitioner:- Mr. Vindhya Keshri Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ Mannu, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayaya. --------- 2/ 22/11/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional P.P. for the State. 2. Petitioner has challenged order dated 12.5.2011 by which the learned lower court had summoned the petitioner including others to face trial for an offence punishable under Sections 323, 302, 120B of the IPC in connection with Complaint Case No.700/2010 3. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that on 31.1.2006, the mobs who were demonstrating turned violent endangering the life of police personnel as well as property, on account of which firstly, Lathi charge was resorted and then firing was ordered. As alleged, it has caused death to two persons. There happens to be registration of Chand P.S. Case No. 7/06 while its counter version happens to be Chand P.S. Case No. 8/2006 recorded on the fardbeyan of Feku Yadav father of one of the deceased. The case was investigated and 2 final form was submitted in Chand P.S. Case No. 8/2006 which was accepted by the learned lower court. However, on the basis of protest petition which was subsequently converted as a complaint petition an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was taken up which concluded summoning of the petitioner including others. 4. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the order happens to be bad in law as well as on facts. To demonstrate the same, it has further been submitted that from the court question put to the informant/complainant, he cannot be an eyewitness to occurrence. His evidence also does not form within the category of hearsay. The remaining witnesses who have been examined, volunteered on account of political vengeance having been surfaced at the lowest level. Apart from this, it has also been submitted that whatever allegation has been leveled against the petitioner a public servant that happens to be during course of discharging of his official duty, as a result of which sanction appears to be sine-quo-non for taking cognizance. As such cumulative effect happens to be neither the law permits nor the facts discloses complicity of petitioner to be proceeded with. 5. On the other hand, learned APP opposed and 3 submitted that for the purpose of summoning of accused, a prima facie material has to be traced out which is itself evident from the deposition of the witnesses. 6. Sanction is a kind of shield available to the public servant so that they should not be allowed to vexatious prosecution at the hands of unscrupulous litigants. That means to say the act so done by the public servant in due discharge of his official duty should be inter-connected with the allegation for which he is to be prosecuted. So far present theme is concerned, by having Chand P.S. Case No. 7/2006 the firing is admitted and in likewise manner, the death of the persons. Though, the disclosure has been to the effect that firing was made in the air. Further there is admission that the aforesaid firing was effected on an order of D.S.P., the petitioner. 7. During the course of enquiry which commenced on the basis of complaint so converted from protest petition, the witnesses have categorically identified the petitioner to be order giver. Whether firing was imminent and further it was in due discharge of official duty is a factual aspect which could be ascertained during the course of trial only and then and then only the question of sanction will arise. Otherwise, 4 the sanction is not required. 8. Thus, tracing out the prima facie case coming out after completion of the enquiry which led summoning the petitioner is not going to be barricaded on account of presence of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.. As such, I do not see any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequent thereupon, the instant petition is rejected. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)