ORDER Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - Aggrieved by order dated 13.01.2004 in Complaint Case No. 09 of 2003 whereby, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega took cognizance of the offence under Section 379/500/509 IPC, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. been filed by the accused-applicant. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the documents on record. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Complaint Case was filed as a counterblast to the First Information Report being Simdega P.S. Case No. 20 of 2003 registered against the complainant on 06.03.2003 for theft of electricity. It is contended that the applicant removed the defective welding machine along with other materials in discharge of his official duties and therefore, without sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the court could not have taken cognizance of the offence as alleged in the Complaint Petition. Relying on decision in "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal" 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Complaint Case was filed with ulterior motive to wreck vengeance against the applicant and therefore, the entire proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 09 of 2003 is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that a bare perusal of the order dated 13.01.2004 taking cognizance of the offence discloses that the trial court noticed that the acts alleged against the accused were not in discharge of his official duties and therefore, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not required. 5. At the outset, I may mention that in respect of the incident which took place on 06.03.2003 a First Information Report under Section 379 IPC r/w Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 1910 was registered against the complainant namely, Ram Narayan Agrawal. In the Complaint Case the complainant admitted that on 06.03.2003, the accused and other staff of the Electricity Board visited the factory at Gausala Road, Simdega and removed the defective welding set and electric wires. The written report of the Assistant Engineer, Electricity Board dated 06.03.2003 mentions preparation of seizure memo evidencing seizure of welding set and electric wires. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant also tendered a certified copy of the seizure memo dated 06.03.2003 which discloses seizure of Aluminium Conductor, Insulator, PVC wire, welding set etc. The written report of the Assistant Engineer, Electricity Board dated 06.03.2003 mentions preparation of seizure memo evidencing seizure of welding set and electric wires. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant also tendered a certified copy of the seizure memo dated 06.03.2003 which discloses seizure of Aluminium Conductor, Insulator, PVC wire, welding set etc. The seizure memo not been disputed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. It is thus, an admitted position that the applicant removed the materials from the factory and prepared a seizure memo which forms part of the criminal case registered against the complainant. The charge sheet dated 21.05.2003 filed in Simdega P.S. Case No. 20 of 2003 also records seizure of materials from the factory and preparation of seizure memo. 6. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that no court shall take cognizance of the offence without prior sanction. Now, it been authoritatively held that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required only in cases in which the materials produced by the prosecution or from the admitted documents, without any further enquiry, it can be concluded that the act alleged against the accused was done in discharge of official duty. In cases where the court cannot come to such a conclusion at the stage of cognizance, the question of sanction under Section 191 Cr. P.C. to be left open to be decided at a later stage. The judgment in "Raj Kishor Roy v. Kamleshwar Pandey" (2002) 6 SCC 543 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the question of sanction may be decided at a subsequent stage been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Romesh Lal Jain v. Naginder Singh Rana & Ors." reported in (2006) 1 SCC 294 and explained in "Om Prakash and others v. State of Jharkhand and Anr." reported in (2012) 12 SCC 72 in the following words : 41. "The upshot of this discussion is that whether sanction is necessary or not 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. "The upshot of this discussion is that whether sanction is necessary or not 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. At this point, in order to exclude the possibility of any misunderstanding, we make it clear that the legal discussion on the requirement of sanction at the very threshold is based on the finding in the earlier part of the judgment that the present is not a case where the police may be held guilty of killing Munna Singh in cold blood in a fake encounter. In a case where on facts it may appear to the court that a person was killed by the police in a stage managed encounter, the position may be completely different." 7. The expression "any offence alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty" been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari" AIR 1956 SC 44 . In the said case the Constitution Bench held that there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of the official duty and the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim that he did it in the course of performance of his duty. Recently, in "N.K. Ganguly v. Central Bureau of Investigation" (2016) 2 SCC 143 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that for the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C., it is imperative that the alleged offence is committed in discharge of the official duty by the accused. 8. From the materials brought on record, it appears that the applicant removed materials from the factory which were used by the accused for theft of electricity, during the raid conducted in the factory premises which undoubtedly was done in discharge of duty. Considering the aforesaid fact, the order taking cognizance under Section 379 IPC is liable to be interfered with and the same is hereby quashed. 9. In so far as, cognizance under Sections 500 and 504 IPC is concerned, I find that the complainant specifically alleged that the accused abused him by saying "sala chor hai kanon batiyata hai" and that he defamed him in presence of the others. In his statement on solemn affirmation also, the complainant reiterated similar allegations against the applicant. In "State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal" (2004) 12 SCC 195 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. The Court further held that when no offence is disclosed by the complainant, the court may examine the question of fact. In "Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd." (2006) 6 SCC 736 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus : 12.(i) "A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint." 10. For this purpose, the complaint to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint." 10. The order taking cognizance dated 13.01.2004 reveals that the complainant examined as many as three witnesses and after considering the pre-summoning evidence and other materials brought on record, the trial court took cognizance of offence under Section 500 and 504 IPC. Considering the aforesaid facts, I decline to interfere with that part of the order under which cognizance u/s 500 and 504 IPC been taken. At this stage, it cannot be decided whether the prosecution by the complainant is actuated with malafide and it was initiated to wreck vengeance upon the applicant. The trial court shall proceed with the case for offence under Section 500 and 504 IPC. 11. Interim order dated 20.04.2009 stands vacated. 12. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands partly allowed, in the aforesaid terms. 13. A copy of the order be transmitted to the trial court through FAX, forthwith. Petition partly allowed.