Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) BY way of this criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner Prakash Chandra Bafna has beseeched to set aside the order dated 29th May, 2003, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj took cognizance of the offences under Sections 166, 353 and 504 of IPC and proceeded against the petitioner and further the order dated 9th August, 2004, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application filed under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, the only crucial question springing for consideration in the instant petition is that as to whether protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is available to the petitioner or not in the fact and circumstances of the case? The nub of the complainant's case is that the petitioner Prakash Chandra Bafna was posted as Assistant Engineer, P.H.E.D., Sheoganj at the relevant point of time. The complainant was posted as Pump Driver under his sub-ordination. Having come back from vacations, he went to mark his presence in the Attendance Register in the office of J.En. where he was asked not to mark his presence as Mr. Prakash Chandra Bafna A.En. had directed him not to permit the complainant to mark his presence in the Register. When the complainant went to the petitioner's Office to ask its reason, the petitioner abused him and pushed him to go out. He used vulgar and filthy language suggesting the complainant as The complainant filed a complaint whereupon the Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj having recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. took the cognizance of the aforesaid offences and proceeded against the petitioner. A bare reading of the facts of the complaint reveals that the offences under Sections 166, 353 and 504 are prima facie made out. The learned trial Court rightly took the cognizance of the aforesaid offences and he is found to have committed no error. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated the interference by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in a routine manner. It has been consistently held that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. In the case of Som Mittal vs. Government of Karnatak reported in (2008) 3 SCC 758 = 2008(4) RLW 3004 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that: "18. We may observe that despite this Court consistently having held in a catena of decisions that inherent power of the High Court should not be exercised according to whims and caprice and it has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, we often come across the High Court exercising the inherent power under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a routine manner at its whims and caprice setting at naught the cognizance taken and the FIR lodged at the threshold committing grave miscarriage of justice. While it is true that so long as the inherent power of Sec. 482 is in the statute book, exercise of such power is not impermissible but it must be noted that such power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, the sole aim of which is to secure the ends of justice. The power under Sec. 482 is not intended to scuttle justice at the threshold."
(3.) NOW adverting to the sole crucial question emerging in the instant petition as to whether protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is available to the petitioner or not? It is found that the petitioner used abusive and filthy language and abused the complainant Oba Ram- Pump Driver, when he came to join his duty. When the complainant Oba Ram asked that he was a poor man, then the petitioner is alleged to have suggested the complainant in the following words:- JUDGEMENT_407_RAJLW1_2011Image1.jpg Section 197 of Cr.P.C. envisages:- "197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.- (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction- (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government; [Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central Government" were substituted.] Learned trial Court while adjudicating the application filed by the petitioner under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. relied upon the judgment of State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Budikota Suvaram reported in 1993 SCC and observed that using abusive and filthy language in calling the complainant with bad names and pushing him to go out of the office was not the act in the discharge of his official duty. Learned trial Court also placed reliance on the judgment of Shambhunath Mishra vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 1997(1) 2002. ;