Judgment B.N. Agrawal, J. This application has been filed for quashing prosecution of the petitioner under Section 201 of the Penal Code. 2. It appears that first information report was lodged by the prosecutrix for prosecution of one Bhandu Mian under Section 376 of the Penal Code. The Police after registering the case sent the prosecutrix to the Incharge Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital for her examination. She was examined by the petitioner who was the Medical Officer attached to Sasaram Sadar Hospital. After examination the petitioner submitted her report thereafter and the officer Incharge of the police station wrote a letter on 5.12.1934 to the petitioner as to how she did not mention in the report any injury on the body of the prosecutrix. The petitioner replied the said letter stating therein that she did not find any mark of violence on the body of the prosecutrix muchless on her cheek. Thereafter the petitioner moved the District Magistrate. Rohtas at Sasaram as the police was trying to harass the petitioner. The District Magistrate directed the Civil Surgeon. Rohtas to enquire the matter and submit a report and the Civil Surgeon after making enquiry in the matter found that the report submitted by the petitioner was quite correct. Therefore, the District Magistrate directed the Superintendent of Police to consult him before taking action against the petitioner. Thereafter the police submitted charge sheet against the accused Bhandhu Main under Section 376 of the Penal Code and against the petitioner for her prosecution under Station 201 of the Penal Code for submitting incorrect medical report by not mentioning therein that she found injury on the cheek of the prosecutrix. Upon receipt of the charge sheet the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 376 of the Penal Code against the Principal offender and his taken cognizance under Section 201 of the Penal Code and directed for summoning the petitioner to face trial under Section 201 of the Penal Code. Hence this application on behalf of the petitioner. 3. In my view sole point which is sufficient to allow this application is that prosecution of the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue because the same is barred under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Undisputed by the petitioner is such a Government Servant who can be removed from his office by the State Government alone. Undisputed by the petitioner is such a Government Servant who can be removed from his office by the State Government alone. In my view all acts done by an accused while acting or purposing to Act, in discharge of official duty will not come under section 197 of the Code but only those acts of the accused complained of will come within the ambit of Section 197 of the Code which are intermingled interwoven with the discharge of official duty. In the case in hand Act, of the accused (petitioner) complained of is intermingled with the discharge of official duty therefore the pre-requisite for application of Section 197 of the Code is also fulfilled. Thus I hold that prosecution of the petitioner is barred under Section 197 of the Code and fit to be quashed. 4. Apart from the ground stated above in my view prosecution of the petitioner is invalid also on the ground because the same is premature. The question whether the medical report, submitted by the petitioner is false or true will be a matter for consideration before the trial court in the rape case. I fail to understand how for such a matter a prosecution could have been launched against the petitioner when the matter is subjudice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts do not disclose any offence under Section 201 of the Penal Code. In my view it is not necessary to record any opinion on this issue at the present juncture, as such I refrain myself from doing the same. 5. In the result this application is allowed and prosecution of the petitioner is hereby quashed. This application is, thus, disposed of. HP. Application allowed.