Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. Both the matters arise out of the complaint Case No. 260/92 and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.9.1996 passed in Complaint Case No. 260/92 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi issuing process after holding that a prima facie case is made out against them under Sections 147, 448, 342, 427, 506, 380 and 384, IPC. 3. On 9.9.1992 opposite party No. 2, posted at the relevant time as DIG/Executive Director (Vigilance) & Central Coal Field Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Coal Field) filed a petition of complaint against the petitioners of both the cases alleging inter alia that while posted in the aforesaid capacity in the Coal Field he has exposed the illegal and nefarious activities of the Officers of the Coal Field as a result of which he incurred their displeasure and they in connivance with the accused petitioners, who are Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspectors of C.B.I./SPE at Ranchi, hatched up a conspiracy to dislodge him from the post of D.I.G. Vigilance B.C.C. Ltd., so that there may be no impediment in their nefarious activities. On 30th August. 1992 at 8.30 p.m. he alongwith Dr. Narendra Sinha came to his house and found that the accused persons after having trespassed into his premises were sitting in front of his Verandah. Seeing him they told that he could not enter into his house and they confined and restrained him from moving without any search warrant or authority paper. They took the complainant inside the house and confined him and forced him to hand over the key and his mother and two children were also confined in a room. The accused petitioners ransacked the house and persistently asked the complainant to disclose as to where he has kept cash and other valuables and also the confidential papers, notings, manuscripts and tape recorder used in vigilance work by him. 4. It is alleged by the complainant that the accused petitioners removed the confidential papers, notings, cassettes, which contained valuable evidence against the officers of the Coal Field and against whom he submitted reports after having found.the prima facie charaes of corruption. The ransack continued from 8.30 p.m. of 30.8.1992 to 10.30 a.m. of 31.8.1992. 4. It is alleged by the complainant that the accused petitioners removed the confidential papers, notings, cassettes, which contained valuable evidence against the officers of the Coal Field and against whom he submitted reports after having found.the prima facie charaes of corruption. The ransack continued from 8.30 p.m. of 30.8.1992 to 10.30 a.m. of 31.8.1992. Due to the aforesaid high handed acts the children and mother of the complainant became ill and they were sent to the hospital for treatment. Thereafter, he was forcibly taken to his office, which is situated in Darbhanga House, and they also ransacked his office and after that he was forcibly taken to C.B.I. Office and there the accused persons forced him, to sign on some papers without going through its contents. Due to the aforesaid highhanded acts the complainant fell ill and was under the treatment of a doctor. The accused persons with a view to save their skin have filed a frivolous case being RC Case No. 17A of 1992 which has been challenged by the complainant in the High Court. 5. It is also stated by the complainant in the complaint petition that the accused persons have defamed him and after giving threat and giving false information they took his signatures on forms, papers without explaining the same. They have disturbed the entire house and also caused mischief by taking some of the important item of the house and his mother and children were also tortured by keeping them confined in a room. He was wrongfully restrained and was put to fear of arrest and also of instant hurt at the time of taking away important documents and cassettes etc. 6. On 16.9.1992 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi after examining the complainant on solemn affirmation and after perusing the complaint transferred the case under Section 192, Cr. P.C. to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranchi. 7. One of the accused petitioners, namely, Sri N.C. Dhoundial of Cr. Misc. No. 5937/96(R) challenged the aforesaid order on 16.9.1992 as well as his prosecution in this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 5057/92 (R). A learned single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 19th August. 1993 dismissed the aforesaid application. Against the said dismissal order the said petitioner filed SLP before the Supreme Court being SLP No. 279/93 and the Apex Court disposed of the matter by order dated 21.9.1993. Misc. No. 5057/92 (R). A learned single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 19th August. 1993 dismissed the aforesaid application. Against the said dismissal order the said petitioner filed SLP before the Supreme Court being SLP No. 279/93 and the Apex Court disposed of the matter by order dated 21.9.1993. It did not interfere with the judgment of this Court and observed as follows : "As it appears to us that only cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and a direction under Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been given to the learned Judicial Magistrate to make further inquiry, we do not think that any interference at this stage is called for. If there is any occasion for the petitioner to feel aggrieved by any subsequent order passed by the learned Magistrate, it will be open to the petitioner to take such steps as may be available to him. With the aforesaid observation the petition is disposed of." 8. Thereafter, it appears that during the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code the complainant opposite party examined Vinod Ghosi, Manoj Kumar, Mahindra Driver, Birendra Singh, Ram Jatan Singh, Dr. Nagendra Singh and Ram Kumar Mishra as witnesses and the learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the allegation made in the complaint, the statement made on solemn affirmation and the evidence of the witnesses found that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons and accordingly ordered for issuance of process by order dated 20.9.1996 which has been challenged by the petitioners in these cases. 9. At the outset, I may mention that the only point which has been pressed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing the prosecution is that the cognizance in this case is vitiated in law as no sanction has been obtained in this case before taking cognizance against the petitioners. In other words, the assertion made on behalf of the petitioners is that the act of omission alleged against them by the complainant was done by them while acting or purporting to act in discharge of their official duties and as such no cognizance can be taken except with the previous sanction of the concerned Government. 10. Elaborating the submission it was contended that the complainant opposite party is an accused in R.C. Case No. 17A/92 (R) relating to demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 10. Elaborating the submission it was contended that the complainant opposite party is an accused in R.C. Case No. 17A/92 (R) relating to demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- by him from one Ramchandra Singh, Contractor of C.C.L. of Berma Coal Field. The said case was registered on 30th August, 1992. According to the allegation the complainant demanded Rs. 25,000/- from contractor Ramchandra Singh through one Mr. K.B. Mandal, an Area Sales Officer, Kargali C.C.L. Since the complaint was against the senior I.P.S. Officer, of the rank of D.I.G., the accused persons got the matter verified and in this connection they utilised the services of the independent witnesses and also deployed a tape recorder with a view to know the exact conversation between the aforesaid Ram Chandra Singh and Opposite Party Hem Chand. After conversation was recorded it was established that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 demanded the aforesaid amount from Ram Chandra Singh. Accordingly on 30th August, 1992 Ram Chandra Singh met K.B. Mandal and K.B. Mandal demanded and accepted the aforesaid amount. The conversation between the aforesaid two persons during the demand and acceptance was also tape recorded and thereafter K.B. Mandal was arrested. Since a prima facie case was made out against K.B. Mandal and opposite party No. 2 a regular case bearing No. RC 17(A)/ 1992(R) was registered against them under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the P.C. Act. In connection with that case they conducted the house search of the opposite party No. 2 on 30th August, 1992 after observing all the formalities. Thus, their stand is that whatever has been done by them that has been done in discharge of their official duties and as such the cognizance taken against them is an abuse of the process of the Court. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand contended that the acts or omission or the offence which are alleged to have been done by the petitioners have no relation with the discharge of their official duties and as such no sanction is required for their prosecution. 12. The sole petitioner Sri N.C. Dhoundial of Cr. Misc. No. 5937/96 (R) is an IPS Officer and at the relevant time he was posted as Superintendent of Police, CBI/SPE, Ranchi and is removable from his office only by the Central Government. Petitioner Nos. 12. The sole petitioner Sri N.C. Dhoundial of Cr. Misc. No. 5937/96 (R) is an IPS Officer and at the relevant time he was posted as Superintendent of Police, CBI/SPE, Ranchi and is removable from his office only by the Central Government. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 Sri Narayan Jha and Shravan Kumar of Cr. Misc. No. 6639/96 (R) at the relevant time were posted at Dy. S.P. of CBI/SPE, Ranchi and they are removable from the service only by the Central Government. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 Digvijai Bahadur Singh, Nand Kishore Verma, Shashi Bhushan Pandey and Bishwanath Singh were functioning as Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector. The State of Bihar issued a notification under Section 197(3) of the Code making provision of sub-section (2) of the Code regarding sanction applicable in their case and as such sanction in their cases is required from the State Government in case 197 of the Code is attracted. 13. The law is well settled that the prosecution at the initial or interlocutory stage can be quashed in rarest of rare cases to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to advance the cause of justice. The reliability or otherwise of the allegation and the material collected at the initial stage cannot be gone into at the time of finding out a prima facie case against the accused persons. It is also well settled by catena of cases that when there is express legal bar to the existence and the continuance of the proceeding then the prosecution cannot proceed unless the requirement of law is fulfilled. 14. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires inter alia that when a public servant 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 discharge of his official duties, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Government concerned. The provision is mandatory. If the act or omission complained of against a public servant has been done by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties then even if a prima facie case is made out the Court is debarred from taking cognizance unless there is valid sanction before it. 15. The provision is mandatory. If the act or omission complained of against a public servant has been done by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties then even if a prima facie case is made out the Court is debarred from taking cognizance unless there is valid sanction before it. 15. The question of sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceeding and the Court has to consider the same taking into consideration the allegation contained in the complaint petition or the F.I.R. and the material available on the record at that time, meaning thereby, that material which has been brought on the record according to law at the relevant stage of the proceeding, has to be looked into to decide the question of sanction. 16. Section 197 of the Code has been enacted with sole object to protect the public servant from the vexatious prosecution. If Section 197 of the Code is interpreted in a narrow sense then the provision will be otiose as it is not part of the official duty to commit offence. If the said section is given wider interpretation or meaning then it will cause miscarriage of justice as it will give protection to the public servant with regard to the acts or omission which have no relations at all with the official duty of the public servant. Thus, the said section has to be interpreted in such a manner which should serve the object of the Act and at the same time will not provide undue advantage to the public servant. 17. The provision of the aforesaid Act has been subject-matter of discussion by the apex Court in catena of cases and it has been held that a public servant is entitled to protection of Section 197 of the Code only when the act constituting an offence is directly or reasonably connected with the official duties. It is the equality of the Act that is important and if it falls within the scope and range of the official duty the provision under Section 197 of the Code is attracted. 18. The question as to whether the offence has reasonable connection with the official duties or not depends upon the facts of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down regarding the applicability of the provision of Section 197 of the Code. 19. 18. The question as to whether the offence has reasonable connection with the official duties or not depends upon the facts of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down regarding the applicability of the provision of Section 197 of the Code. 19. Recently the apex court in the case of Director of Inspection and Audit and others V/s. C.L. Subramaniam, 1994 Supp. (3) Supreme Court Cases 615. has held as follows : "If the provisions of Section 197. Cr. P.C. are examined, it is manifest that two conditions must be fulfilled before they become applicable; one is that the offence mentioned therein must be committed by a public servant and the other is that the public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or a State is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. The object of the section is to provide guard against vexatious proceedings. against judges, magistrates and public servants and to secure the opinion of superior authority whether it is desirable that there should be a prosecution. If on the date of the complaint itself it is incumbent upon the Court to take cognizance of such offence only when there is previous sanction then unless the sanction to prosecute is produced the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence. Naturally at that stage, the Court taking cognizance has to examine the acts complained of and see whether the provisions of Section 197. Cr. P.C. are attracted. If the above two conditions are satisfied then the further enquiry would be whether the alleged offence have been committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties. If this requirement also is satisfied then no Court shall take cognizance of such offences except with the previous sanction. For this purpose the allegations made in the complaint are very much relevant to appreciate whether the acts complained of are directly concerned or reasonably connected with the official duties so that if questioned the public servant could claim to have done those acts by virtue of his office, that is to say. there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duties. there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duties. It is in this context, that the word "supporting to acts in discharge of official duties"" assume importance. The public servant can only be said to act. or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties if his act is such as to lie within the scope of his official duties." 20. In view of the settled law question that has to be determined in this case is as to whether on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint petition and the evidence of the witnesses collected during the enquiry it can be said that the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners have reasonable nexus or relation with their official duties. The defence of the accused cannot be looked into at this stage. 21. Except the assertion in the complaint petition that a false case was instituted by the accused persons being RC 17A/92 there is nothing on the record to show that the accused persons had gone to the house of the informant in connection with an investigation of a regularly instituted case. 22. The assertion made on behalf of the complainant is that without any search warrant and without authority of law the accused persons entered into the house and removed the valuable documents which he had collected in connection with the enquiry against high officials of the Coal Field. They wrongfully confined him and his mother and children who became ill and were hospitalised. These allegations as stand constituted an offence against the petitioners and it was not submitted before me that these allegations on its face value do not constitute an offence. 23. The only question is as to whether the aforesaid acts were done by the accused persons while acting or purporting to act in discharge of their official duties or not. 24. As the materials stand upto today there is nothing on the record to show that there was search warrant or accused persons had any authority of law to go to search the house of the complainant. If cannot be assumed at this stage that as they are the officials of the C.B.I, they must have gone in connection with the investigation of a case under the valid authority in law. 25. If cannot be assumed at this stage that as they are the officials of the C.B.I, they must have gone in connection with the investigation of a case under the valid authority in law. 25. In my considered view on the basis of the materials available on record it cannot be said that the acts complained of by the accused persons are such they can say that they did it while acting or purporting to act in discharge of their official duties. In other words, there is no reasonable connection between the acts complained of and the official duties of the petitioners. On the basis of the materials as stands today the prosecution cannot be quashed on the ground that same suffers for want of sanction under Section 197. Cr. P.C. 26. However. I may mention that the question of sanction can be raised at the different stages of the proceedings. If at the subsequent stage of the proceeding material is brought on the record according to law to show that the accused persons had gone in connection with an investigation of a case under valid search warrant then in that case their action of search of the house confining the persons and other things can be said to have relation with their official duties and in that case the Court may consider the said question and may come to conclusion that the prosecution is vitiated in law for want of sanction. But, as stated above, at this stage the prosecution cannot be quashed only on the basis of defence assertions which cannot be looked into at this stage. 27. In the result. I do not find any merit in these applications and the same are dismissed with the aforesaid observation.