JUDGMENT : 1. Parties through their counsel. 2. The present petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 7-4-2015 passed by learned XI Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 367/14. 3. The facts of the case reveal that the present petitioner is working as Sub-Inspector of Police and a complaint was filed by non-applicant No. 2 Mushahid alleging that on 18-7-2010 at about 7.00 p.m., the present petitioner came to his repairing shop and directed him to repair the head light of the motor cycle. His complaint further reveals that Sub-Inspector of Police was politely told that the complainant is not an expert in repairing two wheeler, however, the present petitioner started assaulting the complainant for merely refusing to repair the head light of the motor cycle. He was beaten mercilessly, which resulted in serious injuries. 4. The complaint further reveals that he was forcibly lifted from his shop and was brought to the Police Station. The Station House Officer also came out of his room and intervened in the matter. The complainant was sent to the hospital and as per the complainant, there was a fracture in the knee cap of the complainant. 5. The complainant also informed the higher authorities and Deputy Inspector of General, Shri Varun Kapoor directed Additional Superintendent of Police Shri Narvariya to look into the matter and Shri Narvariya has submitted a report holding the present petitioner who was Assistant Sub-Inspector, guilty in respect of allegations made by the complainant. 6. In the complaint, it has been further stated that the present petitioner, in order to save his skin lodged a false report against the complainant. 7. Learned counsel has vehemently argued before this Court that the present petitioner as he was a sub-inspector was investigating some other matter and was on duty and therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable and permission was required under section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code. 8. He has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala and anr. reported in I (1996) CCR 77 (SC). He has also placed heavy reliance upon paragraph 6, the same reads as under :- In the present case, the appellant is charged with having entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused while functioning as a Minister. reported in I (1996) CCR 77 (SC). He has also placed heavy reliance upon paragraph 6, the same reads as under :- In the present case, the appellant is charged with having entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused while functioning as a Minister. The criminal conspiracy alleged is that he sold electricity to an industry in the State of Karnataka 'without the consent of the Government of Kerala which is an illegal act' under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Kerala Electricity Board Rules framed thereunder. The allegation is that he in pursuance of the said alleged conspiracy abused his official position and illegally sold certain units to the private industry in Bangalore (Karnataka) which profited the private industry to the tune of Rs. 19,58,630.40 or more and it is, therefore, obvious that the criminal conspiracy alleged against the appellant is that while functioning as the Minister for Electricity he without the consent of the Government of Kerala supplied certain units of electricity to a private industry in Karnataka. Obviously, he did this in the discharge of his duties as a Minister. The allegation is that it was an illegal act inasmuch as the consent of the Government of Kerala was not obtained before this arrangement was entered into and the supply was effected. For that reason, it is said that he had committed an illegality and hence he was liable to be punished for criminal conspiracy under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, clear from the charge that the act alleged is directly and reasonably connected with his official duty as a Minister and would, therefore, attract the protection of section 197(1) of the Act. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of D. T. Virupakshappa vs. C. Subash reported in AIR 2015 SC 2022 . He has placed reliance upon paragraph 6,7 and 10 and the aforesaid paragraphs read as under :- 6. The question, whether sanction is necessary or not, may arise on any stage of the proceedings, and in a given case, it may arise at the stage of inception as held by this Court in Om Prakash and others vs. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi and another. To quote : "41. The question, whether sanction is necessary or not, may arise on any stage of the proceedings, and in a given case, it may arise at the stage of inception as held by this Court in Om Prakash and others vs. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi and another. To quote : "41. The upshot of this discussion is that whether sanction is necessary or not has to be decided from stage to stage. This question may arise at any stage of the proceeding. In a given case, it may arise at the inception. There may be unassailable and unimpeachable circumstances on record which may establish at the outset that the police officer or public servant was acting in performance of his official duty and is entitled to protection given under section 197 of the Code. It is not possible for us to hold that in such a case, the Court cannot look into any documents produced by the accused or the public servant concerned at the inception. The nature of the complaint may have to be kept in mind. It must be remembered that previous sanction is a precondition for taking cognizance of the offence and, therefore, there is no requirement that the accused must wait till the charges are framed to raise this plea. ... "7. In the case before us, the allegation is that the appellant exceeded in exercising his power during investigation of a criminal case and assaulted the respondent in order to extract some information with regard to the death of one Sannamma, and in that connection, the respondent was detained in the police station for some time. Therefore, the alleged conduct has an essential connection with the discharge of the official duty. Under section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code, in case, the Government servant accused of an offence, which is alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, the previous sanction is necessary. 10. In our view, the above guidelines squarely apply in the case of the appellant herein. Going by the factual matrix, it is evident that the whole allegation is on police excess in connection with the investigation of a criminal case. The said offensive conduct is reasonably connected with the performance of the official duty of the appellant. 10. In our view, the above guidelines squarely apply in the case of the appellant herein. Going by the factual matrix, it is evident that the whole allegation is on police excess in connection with the investigation of a criminal case. The said offensive conduct is reasonably connected with the performance of the official duty of the appellant. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case without the previous sanction of the State Government. The High Court missed this crucial point in the impugned order. 9. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgments. It is true that under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in case a Government Servant is accused of offence which is alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty, the previous sanction is necessary, whereas now in the present case, the present petitioner was certainly not at all on official duty. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, he was not acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. He went to Mechanic to get the head light repaired and when he was not obliged by the Mechanic, as stated in the complaint, he was beaten up mercilessly which resulted in fracture also. 11. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is of no help in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and on the contrary the Apex Court in the case of Inspector of Police and another vs. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam reported in AIR 2015 SC 346 in paragraph 5 to 12 has held as under :- "5. Aggrieved, respondents moved the High Court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code leading to the impugned order whereby the criminal proceedings were quashed on the sole ground that there was no sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, and hence the appeals. 6. Heard Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh and Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri K. Maruthi Rao, Mr. K. Subba Rao, Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy and Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. No doubt, while the respondents indulged in the alleged criminal conduct, they had been working as public servants. Prerna Singh and Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri K. Maruthi Rao, Mr. K. Subba Rao, Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy and Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. No doubt, while the respondents indulged in the alleged criminal conduct, they had been working as public servants. The question is not whether they were in service or on duty or not but whether the alleged offences have been committed by them "while acting or purporting to act in discharge of their official duty". That question is no more res integra. In Shambhoo Nath Misra vs. State of U.P. and others, at paragraph-5, this Court held that : "5. The question is when the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund etc. can he be said to have acted in discharge of his official duties. It is not the official duty of the public servant to fabricate the false records and misappropriate the public funds etc. in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties. The official capacity only enables him to fabricate the record or misappropriate the public fund etc. It does not mean that it is integrally connected or inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in the course of the same transaction, as was believed by the learned Judge. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the High Court as well as by the trial Court on the question of sanction is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained." 8. In Parkash Singh Badal vs. State of Punjab and others, at paragraph-20, this Court held that : "20. The principle of immunity protects all acts which the public servant has to perform in the exercise of the functions of the Government. The purpose for which they are performed protects these acts from criminal prosecution. However, there is an exception. Where a criminal act is performed under the colour of authority but which in reality is for the public [pic]servant's own pleasure or benefit then such acts shall not be protected under the doctrine of State immunity." and thereafter, at paragraph-38, it was further held that : "38. However, there is an exception. Where a criminal act is performed under the colour of authority but which in reality is for the public [pic]servant's own pleasure or benefit then such acts shall not be protected under the doctrine of State immunity." and thereafter, at paragraph-38, it was further held that : "38. The question relating to the need of sanction under section 197 of the Code is not necessarily to be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on the allegations contained therein. This question may arise at any stage of the proceeding. The question whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage." 9. In a recent decision in Rajib Ranjan and others vs. R. Vijaykumar, at paragraph-18, this Court has taken the view that ... "even while discharging his official duties, if a public servant enters into a criminal conspiracy or indulges in criminal misconduct, such misdemeanour on his part is not to be treated as an act in discharge of his official duties and, therefore, provisions of section 197 of the Code will not be attracted". 10. Public servants have, in fact, been treated as special category under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution. Such protection from harassment is given in public interest; the same cannot be treated as shield to protect corrupt officials. In Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh and another, at paragraph-74, it has been held that the provisions dealing with section 197, Criminal Procedure Code must be construed in such a manner as to advance the cause of honesty, justice and good governance. To quote : "74. ... Public servants are treated as a special class of persons enjoying the said protection so that they can perform their duties without fear and favour and without threats of malicious prosecution. However, the said protection against malicious prosecution which was extended in public interest cannot become a shield to protect [pic]corrupt officials. These provisions being exceptions to the equality provision of Article 14 are analogous to the provisions of protective discrimination and these protections must be construed very narrowly. These procedural provisions relating to sanction must be construed in such a manner as to advance the causes of honesty and justice and good governance as opposed to escalation of corruption." 11. These provisions being exceptions to the equality provision of Article 14 are analogous to the provisions of protective discrimination and these protections must be construed very narrowly. These procedural provisions relating to sanction must be construed in such a manner as to advance the causes of honesty and justice and good governance as opposed to escalation of corruption." 11. The alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their official duty. Their official duty is not to fabricate records or permit evasion of payment of duty and cause loss to the Revenue. Unfortunately, the High Court missed these crucial aspects. The learned Magistrate has correctly taken the view that if at all the said view of sanction is to be considered, it could be done at the stage of trial only. 12. Resultantly, the impugned orders are set aside. Appeals are allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated being of the year 1999, we direct the trial Court to dispose of the cases as expeditiously as possible at any date on or before 31-12-2015." 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Public servant in fact have been treated as special category under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution. However, at the same time such protection which has been given to them in public interest, cannot be treated as a shield to protect corrupt officials and those officials who have done some act which is certainly not at all in respect of discharge of his official duty. 13. In the present case as per the statement made in the complaint, the petitioner was not discharging any public duty. He went to a mechanic shop for getting his motor cycle repaired which was again a private vehicle and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Class-I has rightly taken cognizance of the matter and has registered a complaint preferred by non-applicant No. 2. The order dated 29-3-2014 has rightly been affirmed in revision by the learned XI Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain. 14. This Court does not find it a fit case for invoking the inherent powers as granted under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 16. The order dated 29-3-2014 has rightly been affirmed in revision by the learned XI Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain. 14. This Court does not find it a fit case for invoking the inherent powers as granted under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 16. Any observation made by this Court while deciding the present petition will not come in way of the petitioner and the trial Court will decide the matter solely on the basis of evidence adduced during the trial and in accordance with law. 17. Certified copy as per rules.