IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49307 of 2007 DR.PRADEEP DAS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sri Mukesh Narain Sinha S/O Sri Jagadish Narain Sinha For the Petitioner : M/S Gautam Bose, Ratna Das, Ajay Kumar,Vikash Jha For Opposite party no. 2 : M/S Pushkar Narain Shahi, Ritesh Kumar No.1, Nishant Chy ----------- 3. 27.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for Opposite party no. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 20.9.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Patna City under Sections 323, 504 arising out of complaint case no. 863 of 2006. The petitioner is stated to be the Director of Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Science registered with the Indian Council of Medical Research under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Opposite party no. 2 is stated to be an Assistant Engineer in the Institute. Both of them are posted in the same office premises at Patna. Apart from suspension of Opposite party no. 2 leading to unsuccessful challenge by him before the Central Administrative Tribunal, acrimonious relationship between them in the office premises manifested itself in the institution of Patna City (Alamganj) P.S. Case No. 252 of 2006 on 23.8.2006 by the petitioner under Sections 323, 341, 353, 406, 420, 447 and 506 of 2 the Penal Code against Opposite party no. 2. The allegations were that in a dispute between them with regard to parking of private vehicle of Opposite party no. 2 at the place designated for the Director- the petitioner, the Opposite party no. 2 in an intoxicated state in the office premises, misbehaved with the petitioner. A dispute followed between them on the issue of installation of vitrified tiles in the laboratory when in the evening the opposite party no. 2 in an intoxicated state stood at the gate of the residence of the petitioner and abused and pushed the petitioner. The opposite party no. 2 questioned the order of cognizance in Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2007 before the Additional District & Sessions Judge X, Patna. By his order dated 3.5.2007, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge X, Patna held that opposite party no. 2 was a Government servant and that sanction of his prosecution was must and in absence of it cognizance was not sustainable. Opposite party no. 2 instituted complaint case no. 863 of 2006 and made allegation that both of them were in the same office premises when the petitioner was using his prowess and pressurizing opposite party no. 2 to sign certain documents in respect of quality certification of certain official purchases made and consequent payment, not only did the petitioner institute a case against opposite party no. 2 but threatened to teach him a lesson and asked him to vacate the official residence and told the opposite party no. 2 that he would fight litigation against him on 3 official expense and caught hold of the collar of opposite party no. 2. The complaint was dismissed after enquiry when cognizance has been taken in pursuance of the order in Criminal Revision No. 532 of 2007 by the same individual Additional District & Sessions Judge X, Patna, who set aside the cognizance order against opposite party no. 2 in Cr. Rev. No. 168 of 2007 arising out of Patna City (Alamganj) P.S. Case No. 252 of 2006 on the ground of absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi appearing on behalf of Opposite party no. 2 submitted that cognizance has been taken against the petitioner on allegations of holding of the collar which can never constitute acts in official duty to invoke protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. From the allegations made by the parties against each other in their respective prosecutions, it emerges that they are both employed in the same office. There appears to be an acrimonious relationship between them. This Court in this application is not concerned with the issues of suspension or other disciplinary action by the petitioner against Opposite party no. 2 or what may or may not have been ordered by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In this acrimonious relationship if Opposite party no. 2 is alleged to have gone to the office premises in an intoxicated condition and then again to the residence of the petitioner in an intoxicated condition, and it has been held by the same Additional 4 District & Sessions Judge that opposite party no. 2 is entitled to the benefit of Section 197 Cr.P.C., this Court finds it difficult to appreciate the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 532 of 2007 by the same Additional District & Sessions Judge X, Patna and the consequential order of cognizance denying applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C. in so far as the petitioner is concerned. In the complaint filed by opposite party no. 2, the place of occurrence is described as the institute premises. The entire allegations in the complaint relate to a controversy with regard to certain acts, actions and dealing related to official duties. The allegation of catching collar is in the office premises in context of the relationship between the parties arising out of the official relationship on official issues. This Court, therefore, relying upon the decision of the Additional District & Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2007 holds that for the same very reason the petitioner is entitled to the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. also. In absence of such sanction, the order dated 9.8.2007 was just and proper in law and requires no interference. The order dated 28.8.2007 in Criminal Revision No. 532 of 2007 and the consequential order of cognizance dated 20.9.2007 are set aside. The application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)