Shrivastava Shilbhadra v. State of Bihar & Anr., Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27022 of 2019, Patna High Court (Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha), decided on 06.10.2026 | CNR No. BRHC010279492019
A public servant cannot be prosecuted for an act that has a reasonable connection with his official duty unless the competent authority has given prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC, and a court cannot take cognizance without it. The protection is not lost merely because the public servant is alleged to have exceeded his authority or acted improperly in doing his official duty. A Magistrate who rejects a discharge application must also consider whether sanction was needed, and cannot simply refer to the case diary.
The Patna High Court has quashed a criminal case against a former Circle Officer (Anchal Adhikari) of Keoti in Darbhanga, because the court took cognizance of the offences against him without the sanction required for prosecuting a public servant under Section 197 CrPC. The case, registered in 2006, alleged that he and others helped issue a rent receipt in favour of a woman by hiding the fact that a Title Appeal (No. 8 of 1988) was pending, and by preparing false and forged documents, causing loss to government revenue and weakening the State’s case. The officer said that he had only passed an official order on the application for the rent receipt under the Bihar Tenants (Holding Maintenance of Record) Act, after an inquiry and report by the concerned Karmachari and Circle Inspector and on the basis of a civil court judgment and decree. The magistrate rejected his discharge application in January 2019 and framed charges in June 2019, and the officer came to the High Court. Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha noted that the whole case arose out of an order passed by him in his official capacity. Relying on the Supreme Court’s S.K. Zutshi and Ganesh Chandra Jew rulings, he said that Section 197 protects an act with a reasonable connection to official duty, and that the allegation of exceeding authority or acting improperly does not by itself remove that protection. No sanction had been obtained, and the Magistrate did not consider this, only referring to some paragraphs of the case diary. The court also found no specific material showing that the officer had any dishonest intention or had himself forged any document, and noted that no witness had come forward to support the prosecution in seven years. It held that continuing the case would be an abuse of process, quashed the orders of 30 January 2019 and 22 June 2019 and all consequential proceedings against him, and allowed the petition.