IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6894 of 1998 Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Son of Dr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Dr. Anwar Alam, Son of Late Samsul Alam, Medical Officer, Civil Surgeon Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur. ------ Opposite Parties ----------- For the Petitioner :- Bindhyachal Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Kumar, Adv. For the O.P. No.2 :- Mr. Awadesh Prasad Sinha, Adv. 7 20.8.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. Even if everything as alleged in the complaint petition is accepted to be correct, it is an official act of the petitioner in capacity of Civil Surgeon of Vaishali district which is sought to be questioned by the complainant-opposite party no.2. Thus, if the complainant-opposite party no.2 was aggrieved on account such performance of official duty of the petitioner and wanted to prosecute him, the complaint had to obtain sanction of prosecution against the petitioner prior to the order taking cognizance. Admittedly, no such sanction of prosecution was ever obtained by the petitioner and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner in the present 2 case is clearly barred in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no doubt that the petitioner holding the post of Civil Surgeon would have been removed only under the order of the State Government and therefore, was well protected for his official actions taken by him. The submission of complainant-opposite party no.2 as with regard to certain abuses hurled by the petitioner in the given context is also wholly improbable if not impossible. The complainant- opposite party no.2 has projected a picture that the petitioner while functioning as Civil Surgeon had gone to the chamber of the complainant Medical Officer and had abused him by hurting his religious sentiments. In the given facts however as admitted in the complaint petition itself that earlier it was the petitioner who had submitted on adverse report against the performance of duties of the complainant-opposite party no.2 in capacity of being a supervising and controlling officer would make even that part of allegation also to be wholly improbable and in fact absurd, which cannot be believed by 3 any prudent person. Considering all these aspect of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution of the petitioner in this case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of the Court and accordingly, the entire prosecution including the impugned order taking cognizance is hereby quashed. In the result, this application is allowed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)