Patna HC Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Forest Officer, Says Public Servants Must Be Protected From Vexatious Prosecution
Rushil Batra
2 April 2026 3:20 PM IST
The Patna High Court has held that criminal proceedings initiated against a public servant without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC are void ab initio, reiterating that such protection is essential to ensure fearless discharge of official duties.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar was hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the order dated 23.08.2014 passed by the S.D.J.M., Banka in Complaint Case No. C-711 of 2008, whereby summons had been issued against the petitioner.
The complaint had been filed by one Shyam Mandal alleging that while transporting stone with valid documents, the petitioner (along with other accused persons) intercepted the tractor, assaulted the complainant and demanded ₹25,000, besides snatching a mobile phone. Cognizance was taken and summons were issued after a pre-summoning inquiry.
The petitioner contended that he was a Range Officer in the Forest Department and that the alleged incident had occurred during the discharge of his official duties. It was argued that in the absence of prior sanction from the competent authority, no cognizance could have been taken against him in view of Section 197 CrPC read with Section 73 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It was further submitted that the complaint was malicious, having been filed shortly after the petitioner had initiated proceedings against the complainant for illegal mining.
The Court, at the outset, examined the scope and object of Section 197 CrPC and observed that the provision is intended to protect public servants from frivolous or vexatious prosecution arising out of acts done in discharge of official duty. It emphasised that such protection ensures that public servants can perform their duties fearlessly without apprehension of retaliatory litigation.
The Court further held that a trial without a valid sanction, where one is necessary, is a trial without jurisdiction, rendering the criminal proceeding void ab initio. Applying the above principles, the Court found that the petitioner, being a Range Officer, was a public servant within the meaning of law and that the alleged acts were committed in the course of official duty. It noted that no prior sanction had been obtained before taking cognizance, thereby vitiating the entire proceeding.
The Court also took note of the petitioner's contention regarding mala fides, observing that the complaint had been instituted shortly after the petitioner had initiated proceedings against the complainant, thereby attracting the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal regarding malicious prosecution.
Accordingly, the Court held that the criminal proceedings arising out of the cognizance order dated 29.05.2008 and the summoning order dated 23.08.2014 were unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Jha v. The State of Bihar and Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 23310 of 2016.
Appearance: Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh and Mr. Ranjit Kumar Singh appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Upendra Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha and Mr. Rana Pratap Singh appeared for the Respondents.