Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the whole criminal prosecution in Complaint Case No. 391/90 now pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, together with the order dt. 30.4.1993 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 500/504/506 I.P.C. and that notices were issued to the petitioner. 2. The chequered history of the case is that opposite party No.2 filed the complaint petition against the petitioner stating therein that on 20.10.1989 at about 11 A.M. the petitioner accosted the complainant on a general passage just near the office of the S.D.O. Sadar, Gaya, and abused the complainant in filthy languages and that the accused has also threatened the complainant giving ghasty and terrifying warning about dire consequences if the complainant did not withdraw the M.J.C. 435/89 pending before the High Court. It has been further alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner had abused and cursed the complainant with unparliamentary words and with a motive and genuine intention of lowering the image and prestige of the complainant in the estimation of the public. 3. The complainant was examined on S.A. on 5.7.1990 and after examining of some witnesses as contemplated under Section 202 of the Cr. P.C, ultimately, cognizance was taken under the said sections of I.P.C. vide order dt. 30.4.1993. It may be mentioned here that the complainant was allowed to collect quarry and mining in a hill near Gaya as per the order of the District Magistrate. But when the Forest Conservation Act & Rules came in existence, the allegation is that the petitioner has obstructed the complainant in his mining work. The complainant then moved before the High Court in a writ petition and there was an order in the writ petition staying the orders passed by the Government creating obstruction in the quarrying work of the complainant and there was also some restraint order against the complainant. It is the allegation that restraint order was violated by the petitioner and as such contempt petition was filed by the complainant before this court. 4. It is submitted that after a merathon hearing on the contempt matter the same was dropped ultimately, but, while that contempt matter was pending then the present criminal case has been filed only as a pressurising tactics. 5. 4. It is submitted that after a merathon hearing on the contempt matter the same was dropped ultimately, but, while that contempt matter was pending then the present criminal case has been filed only as a pressurising tactics. 5. Two points have been urged against the cognizance being taken in the case. The first contention of the learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner is that the cognizance taken is barred by limitation as contemplated under Section 468 of the Cr. P.C. The second contention is that the petitioner being a public servant and when the allegation is that the offence was committed at the office of the petitioner himself then the petitioner cannot be prosecuted without a proper sanction of the Government as contemplated under Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. 6. On the first point it has been submitted from the side of the O.P. No. 2 by relying on a full Bench decision of this court as reported in A.i.R. 1980 Patna p.127 (Jailok Thakur & ors. vs. State of Bihar) to the effect that although the issuance of summons were by the order dt. 30.4.1993 but actually the cognizance of the offence was taken long back on 5.7.1990 when the preliminary statement of the complainant was recorded and it was decided to hold further enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 Cr. P.C. 7. In the full Bench decision it has been categorically differentiated between the cognizance of offence and that of issuance of summons to the accused persons. It goes without saying that cognizance is taken of the offence alone and not of the offenders. After cognizance being taken of the offence enquiry was held under Section 202 Cr. P.C. and then it was decided that processes should be issued against the accused persons and hence the order of issuance of summons had been passed on 30.4.93. The offence has been alleged on 20.10.1989 and cognizance has been taken on 5.7.1990 when the statement of the complainant was recorded on the complaint petition and if properly calculated then it cannot be said that the cognizance taken is barred under Section 468 of the Cr. P.C. 8. Regarding the second point raised from the side of the petitioner no plausible argument could be placed from the side of the complainant as to why Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. 8. Regarding the second point raised from the side of the petitioner no plausible argument could be placed from the side of the complainant as to why Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. would not come to play in the present circumstances of the case except saying that matter of sanction can be considered at a belated stage also, in this connection, the learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner has referred to a recent judgment of the Apex Court as reported in the 1999 (1) B.L.J. (Supreme Court) p. 697 (Md. Hadi Raja vs. State of Bihar). The scope and interpretation of the amended provisions of Section 197 Cr. P.C. had been considered by the Apex Court and it was held that justification for protection of the government servant under Section 197 Cr. P.C. lies in public policy to ensure that official acts performed by a public servant do not lead to needless and vexatious prosecution of such public servant and it was desirable that it should be left to Government to determine question of expediency in prosecuting a public servant. In the discussion in that judgment it was held that before cognizance being taken, the point of sanction should be considered by the courts concerned. 9. In the present case it has already been stated that the petitioner held the office of S.D.O. during the relevant time and it has been stated at the bar that after being promoted to the I.A.S. Cadre he is at the verge of retirement. The venue of the offence has also been admitted to be the office of the S.D.O. A feeble argument has been placed from the side of the complainant- O.P. No. 2 to the effect that the hurling of abuses and threatening can not come within the purview of official acts and, as such, application of Section 197 may not be considered in the circumstances of the case. The background and history of the case is needed to be considered in this particular case. There was litigation going on between the parties in the High Court. There was contempt petition pending against the petitioner before this court and for withdrawal of that complaint petition it is stated that the petitioner had hurled abuses and threatened the complainant. The background and history of the case is needed to be considered in this particular case. There was litigation going on between the parties in the High Court. There was contempt petition pending against the petitioner before this court and for withdrawal of that complaint petition it is stated that the petitioner had hurled abuses and threatened the complainant. So whatever action has been taken stated to be made from the side of the petitioner was definitely as holding of his office as an S.D.O. No where it has been stated that there was any personal vendetta between the complainant and the petitioner. In that sense definitely in the circumstances Section 197 Cr. P.C. shall come into play to ensure the protection of the government servant. 10. In that view of the matter, although the limitation point fails, on the ground of lack of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. the order of cognizance along with criminal prosecution is held to be bad and hence quashed.