JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 2.3.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal partly allowing Criminal Revision No. 39 of 1990 directed against the order dated 27.3.1990 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Pallahara in I.C.C. No. 32 of 1989 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 436 and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. and issuing processes against the opposite parties. Despite service of notice the opposite party No. 1 has not entered appearance in this revision. 2. Both the opposite parties are police officers. During the period of the alleged occurrence opposite party No. 1 was the O.I.C. of whereas opposite party No. 2 was working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Khamarpara Police Station. I.C.C. No. 32 of 1989 was filed by the Petitioner-complainant against the opposite parties and another police officer who was working as Literate Constable in the above said police station as well as one Rabi. It was alleged in the complaint petition that there was quarrel between the Petitioner and the above said accused Rabi prior to the date of the alleged occurrence in connection with which opposite party No. 1 called the Petitioner as well as her husband and sons to the police station and demanded money. As the Petitioner failed to oblige opposite party No. 1 with such demand, on 10.11.1989 the opposite parties and co-accused persons came to the house of the Petitioner in the night. The Petitioner's husband being absent, she refused to open the door. However, the accused persons broke open the door and entered into the house. Opposite party No. 1 and the above said Literate Constable dragged the Petitioner from her house and abovesaid Literate Constable slapped her. They repeatedly asked her regarding whereabouts of her husband. When the Petitioner's husband's brother raised objection against the conduct of the accused persons, the above said Literate Constable caught hold of and abused him. Opposite party No. 1 insisted that the Petitioner's husband had been kept concealed in the house. It was further alleged that the opposite party No. 1 as well as the above said Literate Constable and Rabi "conspired among themselves" and then accused Rabi set fire to the house. Opposite party No. 1 insisted that the Petitioner's husband had been kept concealed in the house. It was further alleged that the opposite party No. 1 as well as the above said Literate Constable and Rabi "conspired among themselves" and then accused Rabi set fire to the house. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 took away Petitioner's two sons and Petitioner's husband's brother to the police station and registered Khamarpara P.S. Case No. 35 of 1989 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 86 of 1989 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Pallahara against the Petitioner and her family members for commission of offence u/s 436 read with 34 I.P.C. On the basis of such allegations, prayer was made to proceed against the opposite parties and co-accused persons for commission of offences under Sections 457, 342, 506, 354, 323 and 436 read with 34 I.P.C. Learned S.D.J.M., Pallahara recorded initial statement of the Petitioner and conducted inquiry u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure in course of which as many as five witnesses (hereinafter referred to as 'Witness Nos. 1 to 5' respectively) were examined. On the basis of materials on record, learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of offences u/s 436 and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. and issued processes against the opposite parties and co-accused persons observing that sanction for prosecution u/s 197 Code of Criminal Procedure against the opposite parties and the above said Literate Constable was not required as the acts complained of against them were not performed in discharge of their Official duties. The opposite parties and above said Rabi appear to have preferred Criminal Revision No. 39 of 1990 before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal. Learned Sessions Judge set aside the order taking cognizance of offence u/s 323 I.P.C. as against all the Petitioners before him and also offence u/s 436 I.P.C. against the present opposite parties. 3. There was absolutely no dispute over the settled principle of law that protection u/s 197 Code of Criminal Procedure has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty and not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. 3. There was absolutely no dispute over the settled principle of law that protection u/s 197 Code of Criminal Procedure has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty and not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. Before protection u/s 197 Code of Criminal Procedure is claimed, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official capacity. If on facts it is prima facie found that the act or omission for which the accused was charged has reasonable connection with discharge of his duty then it must be held to be official, to which applicability of Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be disputed. What a Court has to find out is whether the act and the official duty are so interrelated that one can postulate reasonably that it was done by the accused in the performance of official duty, though, possibly in excess of the need and requirements of situation. In this connection, decisions in P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim 2001 (21) OCR 640 Bakhshish Singh Brar Vs. Gurmej Kaur and Another, : Raj Kishore Roy v. Kamaleswar Pandy 2002 (23) OCR (SC) 716 : State of Maharashra v. Debahari Devasingh Pawer 2008 (39) OCR (SC) 726 relied upon, by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner may be referred to. 4. In the present case the acts complained of by the Petitioner were alleged to constitute commission of offences under Sections 323 and 436 I.P.C which the opposite parties and above said Literate Constable committed along with the above said Rabi in furtherance of their common intention. In the complaint petition, instead of making allegation of any specific overt physical act committed by any of the police officers towards commission of offence u/s 436 I.P.C., it was alleged that consequent upon conspiracy by the opposite parties and co-accused persons, co-accused Rabi set fire to the house of the Petitioner. So far as allegation of offence u/s 323 I.P.C. is concerned, it was alleged that the opposite party No. 1 and the abovesaid Literate Constable dragged the Petitioner, whereas the abovesaid Literate Constable slapped the Petitioner and caught hold of the Petitioner's husband's brother. So far as allegation of offence u/s 323 I.P.C. is concerned, it was alleged that the opposite party No. 1 and the abovesaid Literate Constable dragged the Petitioner, whereas the abovesaid Literate Constable slapped the Petitioner and caught hold of the Petitioner's husband's brother. In the complaint petition, it has been categorically admitted that criminal case was instituted against the Petitioner as well as her husband and two sons. In the background of such allegations, learned Sessions Judge appears to have, on consideration of materials on record, observed that the initial statement of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses examined by her do not make out commission of offence u/s 436 I.P.C. by the opposite parties. It was further observed that the acts of the police officers, in entering into the house of the Petitioner and dragging her and her sons, having been done in connection with investigation of a case, for which the Petitioner's husband was wanted, amount to acts done in discharge of official duty by police officers for which they are not liable to be proceeded without sanction u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Thus, in passing the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge appears to have considered not only the Petitioner's contentions that they could not be proceeded on the basis of the complaint petition without sanction u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also the Petitioner's grievance that materials on record do not constitute any ground for proceeding against the opposite parties for alleged commission of offences under Sections 323 and 436 of the I.P.C. 5. Having examined the materials on record upon reference to the contentions raised from either side as well as relevant legal provisions, it may be pointed out that examination of complainant u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and issuing of processes u/s 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not empty formalities. Rule 21 of the General Rules and Circular Orders of the High Court of Judicature, Orissa (Criminal), Volume-I, prescribes that examination of the complainant u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be a thorough and intelligent enquiry into the subject matter of a complaint to enable the Magistrate to find out whether the complainant is really aggrieved, or whether it would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and harassment to the accused. In course of inquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witness on oath. Proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and to examine them on oath. Before issuance of process, the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence has to arrive at the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused which means that the Magistrate has to be satisfied regarding existence of prima facie case before issuing process. For that purpose, the Magistrate is required to examine the complaint petition, initial statement of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses examined on oath. The Magistrate is required to judicially consider the desirability to terminate the proceeding u/s 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or to proceed against all or some of the accused persons u/s 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure upon reference to materials on record. Process ought to be issued when there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused. It is salutary to note that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. See Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha, . 6. It is worthwhile to obscure that there is no allegation of commission of any overt act by the opposite party No. 2 in the complaint petition as well as the statements of the Petitioner and her witnesses. As has been pointed out above, in the complaint petition, it has simply been stated that consequent upon a conspiracy among the opposite party No. 1, abovesaid Literate Constable and Rabi, co-accused Rabi set fire to the Petitioner's house. As has been pointed out above, in the complaint petition, it has simply been stated that consequent upon a conspiracy among the opposite party No. 1, abovesaid Literate Constable and Rabi, co-accused Rabi set fire to the Petitioner's house. In her initial statement the Petitioner does not whisper a word regarding any role played by the opposite parties in setting fire to the Petitioner's house. It has not even been alleged that any of the opposite parties conspired with or instigated co-accused Rabi to set fire to the house. So also, witness No. 1 did not state that any of the opposite parties had anything to do with torching of the Petitioner's house. Rather, he appears to have stated that when the opposite party No. 1 and above said Literate Constable asked co-accused Rabi to find the Petitioner's husband, Rabi set fire to the house. In the background of such glaring omission and contradiction on the part of the Petitioner and witness No. 1 to implicate the opposite parties with the commission of offence u/s 436 of the I.P.C., witness Nos. 2 and 4 stated that on being directed by opposite party No. 1, co-accused Rabi set fire to the house, witness No. 3 stated that complainant-Petitioner told him that opposite party No. 1 himself set fire to the house and opposite party No. 5 stated that opposite party No. 1 instigated co-accused Rabi to set fire to the house. It may be pointed out that witness No. 4 is Petitioner's son, witness No. 5 is Petitioner's husband and witness No. 2 is his brother. Such being state of materials on record placed by the Petitioner to implicate the opposite parties for commission of offence u/s 436 of the I.P.C., the learned Sessions Judge's observation to the effect that the learned S.D.J.M. issued processes against the opposite parties holding them liable to be proceeded for commission of offence u/s 436 of the I.P.C. without appropriate appreciation of the materials on record does not appear to be unreasonable. It is found that the learned S.D.J.M. arrived at his opinion u/s 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to issue processes against opposite parties for alleged commission of offence u/s 436 of the I.P.C. without sufficient ground for proceeding against them. 7. It is found that the learned S.D.J.M. arrived at his opinion u/s 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to issue processes against opposite parties for alleged commission of offence u/s 436 of the I.P.C. without sufficient ground for proceeding against them. 7. In support of allegation of commission of offence u/s 323 of the I.P.C. it was alleged by the Petitioner in her initial statement that the opposite party No. 1 and above said Literate Constable dragged her to the Courtyard. It was the Literate Constable who slapped her and that witness No. 2 was arrested and confined at the spot. Witness No. 1 stated that opposite party No. 1 dragged the Petitioner and her children as well as dealt two slaps on Petitioner and that witness No. 2 was detained. Witness No. 2 does not state to have witnessed assault on anyone. He stated that when he came to the spot, he found that opposite parties and abovesaid Literate Constable had tied the Petitioner's son in the Courtyard. When he raised objection, he was also tied. Witness No. 3 simply stated that by the time he rushed to the spot, the house was on fire and that the above said Literate Constable had detained the Petitioner, her sons and witness No. 2. Witness No. 4 stated that he as well as his mother and brother were dragged and that when witness No. 2 protested, police did not allow them to go. It is in the statement of witness No. 2 that he as well as his brother were taken to police station and forwarded to Court in connection with P.S. Case No. 35 of 1989. Witness No. 4 also makes a wild allegation, not supported by anyone including witness No. 2, to the effect that in the police station opposite party No. 1 had made them naked and asked them to perform obscene acts. Admittedly, witness No. 5 was not present at the spot. Thus, it is obvious that Petitioner's husband as well as his brother and sons were wanted in connection with a criminal case. It also appears that witness Nos. 2 and 4 were taken to the police station and forwarded to the Court. Admittedly, witness No. 5 was not present at the spot. Thus, it is obvious that Petitioner's husband as well as his brother and sons were wanted in connection with a criminal case. It also appears that witness Nos. 2 and 4 were taken to the police station and forwarded to the Court. In such circumstances, in view of inconsistent and vague allegations made against the opposite parties with regard to commission of offences under Sections 436 as well as 323 of the I.P.C. no infirmity appears also in the observation of the learned Sessions Judge that as police officers, opposite party No. 1 and his sub-ordinates might have dragged the Petitioner and her sons while discharging their official duties for the purpose of investigation. In view of the nature of materials placed by the Petitioner in support of her allegations, the learned Sessions Judge does not appear to have committed any illegality or impropriety so as to warrant interference, which would result in revival of the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner as early as in the year 1989, by invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the revision and accordingly, dismiss the same. Final Result : Dismissed