ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Nobody appears on behalf of opposite party no.2. 2. The applicant, at the relevant time, was a Circle Inspector, who was arraigned as an accused in a complaint lodged by opposite party no.2. 3. The allegation in the complaint, referred to above, in nutshell, is that the complainant and others were the parcha holders under the provisions of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947. By virtue of such largesse by the State having been bestowed upon him and others, the field was harvested and ‘Kalai’ crops were sown by them. The land-holders, on being aggrieved by cancellation of jamabandi in their name, had approached the High Court under writ jurisdiction. The order, cancelling the jamabandi of the land-holders, was stayed. When the complainant came to learn about such a stay order having been obtained by the land-holders in a fraudulent manner, he and others also approached the High Court for vacating of such stay order. It has thereafter been alleged that the petitioner, who was deputed as a Magistrate, knowing fully well about the facts of the case abetted and facilitated the other accused persons in harvesting the ‘kalai’ crops standing in the field. There is allegation of assault and intemperate behaviour as well. The aforesaid complaint was registered as Complaint Case No. 3178 of 2007. 4. In the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the allegations were supported by the complainant in his solemn affirmation and such action of the petitioner was also sought to be affirmed by the witnesses offered on behalf of the prosecution. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Katihar, vide his order dated 07.02.2008, took cognizance against the accused persons including the petitioner under Sections 193, 371, 420, 461, 384, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The aforesaid order is under challenge. 7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that assuming everything in the complaint to be ex-facie true, one aspect cannot be doubted that the petitioner was discharging his official duties and that the action complained of by the complainant had direct link with the official discharge of the duty of the petitioner. 8. The aforesaid order is under challenge. 7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that assuming everything in the complaint to be ex-facie true, one aspect cannot be doubted that the petitioner was discharging his official duties and that the action complained of by the complainant had direct link with the official discharge of the duty of the petitioner. 8. This being the core argument of the learned senior counsel, it has been submitted that the petitioner enjoys the protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; no cognizance could have been taken without the prior sanction of the authorities. 9. It has then been submitted by the petitioner that a meeting was convened of the land-holders and the parcha-holders by the local authorities. The purpose of convening such meeting was to have the standing crops reaped without unnecessary chaos and trouble at either end. 10. In the aforesaid meeting, land-holders, some of them being the accused persons of the present complaint, impressed upon the authorities that the order cancelling the jamabandi of the land-holders was stayed by the High Court. After verifying such facts, the Sub Divisional Officer, Katihar took a decision of having the crops harvested by the land-holders, in whose name jamabandi existed and who had grown the crops. A decision also was taken with respect to the initiation of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By way of abundant precaution, the legal section of the District was also directed to seek information regarding the status of the writ filed by the land-holders in the High Court. Pursuant to such a decision, the petitioner in the capacity of the Circle Inspector was entrusted with the job of the magistracy of having the crops harvested. Such a decision was communicated to the petitioner. 11. It has been submitted that under such circumstances, the complainant, who is one of the parcha-holders, was bound to have been aggrieved. Such complaints are not uncommon. Arraigning the petitioner also along with the land-holders clearly reflects the vindictive approach of the complainant-opposite party no.2. The very fact that the petitioner had gone in connection with the powers of magistracy bestowed upon him by an executive decision, it can safely be presumed that he had no interest in the matter except for having a peaceful harvesting of the crops facilitated. The very fact that the petitioner had gone in connection with the powers of magistracy bestowed upon him by an executive decision, it can safely be presumed that he had no interest in the matter except for having a peaceful harvesting of the crops facilitated. It is a matter of common knowledge that a loser in a legal battle tries to involve as many persons as possible. The implication of the petitioner in the present case is only an illustration of such a common behaviour of a litigant, who has lost, even temporarily in a judicial proceeding. The job of the petitioner was directly linked with the action which has been complained of and such action was in due discharge of his official duty. 12. That he owes a protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a foregone conclusion. 13. On the above premised reason, the order taking cognizance dated 07.02.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Katihar in Complaint Case No.3178 of 2007 is held to be without substance. The same is quashed. 14. The application is allowed. Application allowed.