ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 07.11.2015 (Annexure A/1) passed by Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 176/2015 (Rakesh Kumar Joshi Vs. Manohar Jethani & another), affirming the order dated 03.11.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai-3, District-Durg (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 3330/2011, wherein, the trial court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 166, 339, 499 & 506 of I.P.C. against the petitioner. 2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai-3 has registered Complaint Case No. 3330/2011 against the petitioner and summon was issued to the petitioner. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Thana in-charge of Police Station-Bhilai-3, District-Durg (C.G.). Respondent No. 1/Complainant- Manohar Jethani, who is an advocate by profession (as stated in his evidence) filed a complaint on 20.11.2009 against the petitioner under Section 200 of I.P.C. mainly contending that there is dispute with his younger brother-Anil Jethani, who is active member of Bhartiya Janta Party, with regard to distribution of property. Younger brother of the complainant and his wife were creating undue pressure and hindrance in utilizing the property. Younger brother has also threatened the complainant so many occasions and also threatened that he would be prosecuted in various cases. 3. It has been further contended in the Complaint that he had submitted written complaint to Superintendent of police about conduct of his brother and his wife and he was explaining this fact to the petitioner on 13/05/2009 then all of a sudden petitioner on account of excitement and by losing his tamper had thrown away his name plate and he told that the said complaint filed by the complainant will not affect adversely to the petitioner. Again on 20/5/2009 when he went to Police Station-Bhilai- 3 some persons were sitting in the chamber and were supporting the case of his brother by saying that documents of complainant are forged and fabricated one. The petitioner was supporting case of his brother which is not official duty of petitioner. The act committed by the petitioner is an offence punishable under Sections 166, 339, 499 & 506 of I.P.C. and he would submit that the petitioner may not be prosecuted for the said offence. 4. Complainant examined himself and his wife on 23.03.2010. The petitioner was supporting case of his brother which is not official duty of petitioner. The act committed by the petitioner is an offence punishable under Sections 166, 339, 499 & 506 of I.P.C. and he would submit that the petitioner may not be prosecuted for the said offence. 4. Complainant examined himself and his wife on 23.03.2010. The complainant has also examined one Reader posted in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, wherein he has stated that the complainant has submitted complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class considering the evidence on record, registered the complaint for committing offence punishable under Sections 166, 339, 499 & 506 of I.P.C. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved with registration of offence, filed Criminal Revision No. 176/2015 under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. contending that the petitioner has discharged his official duty, therefore, as per Section 197 (2) of I.P.C., no complaint against any public servant can be registered without sanction from Government, therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable and same deserves to be dismissed by the Revisional Court. It was further contended that there was family dispute between complainant and his brother, he is unnecessary roped in the complaint. 6. The Revisional Court vide its order dated 07.11.2015 (Annexure A/1) dismissed the revision petition by recording finding that the Government servant cannot take shelter of every illegal act committed by him unless there is nexus with the official duty while discharging his official duty, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has not committed any material illegality or irregularity in registration of offence against the petitioner and accordingly, dismissed the criminal revision. The order dated 07.11.2015 passed by the Revisional court as well as order dated 03.11.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate are challenged in this petition, mainly contending that since no sanction has been obtained before prosecuting the petitioner, who is a Government servant the complaint itself not maintainable. It was further contended that there was property dispute with complainant and his brother, whereas petitioner being Thana in-charge, attempted to resolve the dispute while discharging his official duty. He would further submit that the trial court has committed error in not considering the enquiry report dated 29.12.2019 submitted by Superintendent of Police, Durg. It was further contended that there was property dispute with complainant and his brother, whereas petitioner being Thana in-charge, attempted to resolve the dispute while discharging his official duty. He would further submit that the trial court has committed error in not considering the enquiry report dated 29.12.2019 submitted by Superintendent of Police, Durg. The complaint case filed against the petitioner is false and main purpose was to cause embarrassment and harassment to the petitioner, therefore, it is prayed that the orders passed by the learned Revisional court as well as by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, are liable to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 2 filed his reply, wherein it has been mentioned that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality and irregularity, therefore, this petition deserves to be and is liable to be dismissed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted his return as well as written synopsis on 22.07.2021, wherein he has submitted that respondent No. 1 and his wife are wrongfully restrained from entering into their family property. The petitioner by misusing his position has unlawfully and wrongfully restrained respondent No. 1 and his wife from entering into the joint family property, therefore, the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 339/341 of I.P.C. Hence, it is prayed that this petition may kindly be dismissed. It has been further contended that it is not duty of the police officer to resolve the private disputes pertaining to joint family property of the parties, therefore, he cannot take shelter of provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The police officer cannot take any action unless a complaint/FIR is recorded under Section 154 or 155 of the Cr.P.C. He would refer to Section 23 of the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007, which defines the function and responsibility of police officer, which is extracted as under :- “23. Role, functions and duties of the Police.- The following shall be the functions and responsibilities of a police officer:- (1) (a) To enforce the law, and to protect life, liberty, property, rights and dignity of the people; (b) To prevent crime and public nuance; (c) To maintain public order; (d) To preserve internal security, prevent and control terrorist activities and to prevent breach of public peace; (e) To protect public property; (f) To detect offences and bring the offenders to justice; (g) To arrest persons whom he is legally authorised to arrest and for whose arrest sufficient grounds exist; (h) To help people in situations arising out of natural or man-made disasters, and to assist other agencies in relief measures; (i) To facilitate orderly movement of people and vehicles and to control and regulate traffic; (j) To gather intelligence relating to matters affecting public peace and crime; (k) To provide security to public authorities in discharging their functions; (l) To perform all such duties and discharge such responsibilities as may be enjoined upon him by law or by an authority empowered to issue such directions under any law. (2) The State Government, or an authority specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government may assign such other duties and responsibilities to police officer as may be specified by the State Government.” 9. He would further submit that the petitioner has transgressed his limit, thus, the offence has been committed by him, which does not fall within any category of function of responsible police officer, therefore, he cannot take shelter of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., which is necessary for prosecuting public servant, as such present Criminal Misc. Petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost satisfaction. 11. The point involved in this case for determination of this Court is whether the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai-3, District-Durg has committed any illegality or irregularity in registering the offence and Revisional Court has committed illegality or irregularity, in dismissing the revision on the count that no sanction is required for institution of criminal proceeding against public servant as the conduct of petitioner does not come within the ambit of discharge of official duty. 12. 12. Before adverting to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents, it is necessary to examine the provisions of Section 21 of IPC, 197 Cr.P.C and police regulation which are extracted below:- “21. “Public servant”.—The words “public servant” denote a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following; namely:— (Second) —Every Commissioned Officer in the Military, [Naval or Air] Forces. “Public servant”.—The words “public servant” denote a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following; namely:— (Second) —Every Commissioned Officer in the Military, [Naval or Air] Forces. [(Third) —Every Judge including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions;] (Fourth)— Every officer of a Court of Justice [(including a liquidator, receiver or commissioner)] whose duty it is, as such officer, to investigate or report on any matter of law or fact, or to make, authenticate, or keep any document, or to take charge or dispose of any property, or to execute any judicial process, or to administer any oath, or to interpret, or to preserve order in the Court, and every person specially authorized by a Court of Justice to perform any of such duties; (Fifth) — Every juryman, assessor, or member of a panchayat assisting a Court of Justice or public servant; (Sixth) — Every arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by any Court of Justice, or by any other competent public authority; (Seventh) —Every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to place or keep any person in confinement; (Eighth)— Every officer of [the Government] whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public health, safety or convenience; (Ninth) — Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of [the Government], or to make any survey, assessment or contract on behalf of [the Government], or to execute any revenue process, or to investigate, or to report, on any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of [the Government], or to make, authenticate or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interests of [the Government], or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of [the Government] (Tenth) — Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property, to make any survey or assessment or to levy any rate or tax for any secular common purpose of any village, town or district, or to make, authenticate or keep any document for the ascertaining of the rights of the people of any village, town or district; [Eleventh)—Every person who holds any office in virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election;] [Twelfth —Every person— (a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government; (b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).]” 13. Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is extracted below:- “197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.-(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction- (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: [Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression" State Government" occurring therein, the expression" Central Government" were substituted.] (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub- section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub- section will apply as if for the expression" Central Government" occurring therein, the expression" State Government" were substituted. [(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. [(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.] (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held.” 14. It is pertinent to mention here that after enactment of C.G. Police Act 2007 the old Police Act 1861 has been repealed but as per section 50 of Police Act 2007 since State has not framed any police regulation the old regulation will be applicable. The Section 50 of the Police Act is reproduced below:- “50. Power to make Rules.- (1) The state Government may make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act: Provided that existing State Police regulations shall continue to be in force till altered or repealed. (2) All rules made under this Act shall be laid before the State Legislature as soon as possible.” 15. Since no regulations have been framed by State the old regulations will be applicable with full force in State of Chhattisgarh . (2) All rules made under this Act shall be laid before the State Legislature as soon as possible.” 15. Since no regulations have been framed by State the old regulations will be applicable with full force in State of Chhattisgarh . The relevant Regulation 236 of Chhattisgarh Police Regulations is extracted below:- ^^236- iqfyl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 29 ds vUrxZr vfHk;kstu& ¼v½ fujh{kd ls uhps ds Lrj ds vf/kdkjh ds ekeys esa mi&egkfujh{kd dh ;k ¼c½ ml Js.kh ds ;k mlds maps Lrj ds vf/kdkjh ds ekeys esa egkfujh{kd dh Lohd`fr ds fcuk dksbZ iqfyl vf/kdkjh iqfyl vf/kfu;e 1861 dh /kkjk 29 ds vUrxZr vfHk;ksftr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA** 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has enquired from Superintendent of Police, Durg, who submitted his enquiry report on 29.12.2009, wherein Superintendent of Police, Durg has submitted that the petitioner has neither threatened nor created undue pressure on the complainant, whereas owner of the house Sushma Jethani wife of Anil Jethani, has made a complaint in writing that the complainant- Manohar Jethani and his wife are interfering in the property, therefore, the complaint is illegal and without any foundation. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has discharged his official duty, therefore, without sanction from Director General of Police, no police official can be prosecuted. In support of his submission, he would rely upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of State of Orissa Vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40 , which reads as under:- “7..........If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from the protection..........” 18. He would also rely upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Om Prakash & others Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 12 SCC 72 , which reads as under :- “36.........The protection given under Section 197 of the Code has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 12 SCC 72 , which reads as under :- “36.........The protection given under Section 197 of the Code has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of the protection......” 19. To get the protection of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., he would place reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of D.T. Virupakshappa Vs. C. Subash, AIR 2015 SC 2022 , wherein it has been held as under:- “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 CrPC, 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.” 20. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in D. Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695 , held as under:- “65. The law relating to the requirement of sanction to entertain and/or take cognizance of an offence, allegedly committed by a police officer under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, is well settled by this Court, inter alia by its decisions referred to above. 66. Sanction of the Government, to prosecute a police officer, for any act related to the discharge of an official duty, is imperative to protect the police officer from facing harassive, retaliatory, revengeful and frivolous proceedings. 66. Sanction of the Government, to prosecute a police officer, for any act related to the discharge of an official duty, is imperative to protect the police officer from facing harassive, retaliatory, revengeful and frivolous proceedings. The requirement of sanction from the government, to prosecute would give an upright police officer the confidence to discharge his official duties efficiently, without fear of vindictive retaliation by initiation of criminal action, from which he would be protected under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. At the same time, if the policeman has committed a wrong, which constitutes a criminal offence and renders him liable for prosecution, he can be prosecuted with sanction from the appropriate government. 67. Every offence committed by a police officer does not attract Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. The protection given under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act has its limitations. The protection is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and official duty is not merely a cloak for the objectionable act. An offence committed entirely outside the scope of the duty of the police officer, would certainly not require sanction. To cite an example, a police man assaulting a domestic help or indulging in domestic violence would certainly not be entitled to protection. However if an act is connected to the discharge of official duty of investigation of a recorded criminal case, the act is certainly under colour of duty, no matter how illegal the act may be. 68. If in doing an official duty a policeman has acted in excess of duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the fact that the act alleged is in excess of duty will not be ground enough to deprive the policeman of the protection of government sanction for initiation of criminal action against him.” 21. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2021 (Indra Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & another) vide order dated 23.07.2021 held as under:- “9......... Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2021 (Indra Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & another) vide order dated 23.07.2021 held as under:- “9......... However, such sanction is necessary if the offence alleged against the public servant is committed by him “while action or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” and in order to find out whether the alleged offence is committed “while acting of purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty”, the yardstick to be followed is to form a prima facie view whether the act of omission for which the accused was charged had a reasonable connection with the discharge of his duty. [See State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao]. The real question, therefore, is whether the act committed is directly concerned with the official duty.” 22. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would submit that the petitioner has committed offence under Sections 166, 339, 499 & 506 of I.P.C., which does not fall within the ambit official duty, as such, it can be termed that he has discharged official duty, therefore, no sanction is required for prosecuting him as provided in Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has rightly taken cognizance of the offence and registered the complaint case against the petitioner. The Revisional court has also not committed any illegality and irregularity in rejecting the revision, which warrants interference by this Court and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. To substantiate that the act done by the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of official duty, he would refer to Section 23 of the Police Act, 2007. 23. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would further submit that since the petitioner has disobeyed the law with intent to cause injury to any person, he would not be entitled to get protection of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. He would refer to Section 166 of the I.P.C., which reads as under:- “166. 23. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would further submit that since the petitioner has disobeyed the law with intent to cause injury to any person, he would not be entitled to get protection of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. He would refer to Section 166 of the I.P.C., which reads as under:- “166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person.— Whoever, being a public servant knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.” 24. The controversy raised in petition is moving around the word official duty, which is subject matter of explanation in various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court as well as in the legal dictionary also. The Major Law Lexicon Fourth Edition has defined official duty, which is as under :- “Official duties are the duties imposed on officers of the Government” 25. The explanation official duty occurring in Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. has come up for consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Anjani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2008 (5) SCC 248 , relevant portion of Para 13, which is as under:- “11. Such being the nature of the provision the question is how should the expression, 'any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty', be understood? What does it mean? 'Official' according to dictionary, means pertaining to an office, and official act or official duty means an act or duty done by an officer in his official capacity. In B. Saha and Others Vs. M.S. Kochar, it was held: (SCC pp. 184- 85, para 17) '17. The words 'any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty' employed in Section 197(1) of the Code, are capable of a narrow as well as a wide interpretation. In B. Saha and Others Vs. M.S. Kochar, it was held: (SCC pp. 184- 85, para 17) '17. The words 'any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty' employed in Section 197(1) of the Code, are capable of a narrow as well as a wide interpretation. If these words are construed too narrowly, the section will be rendered altogether sterile, for, 'it is no part of an official duty to commit an offence, and never can be'. In the wider sense, these words will take under their umbrella every act constituting an offence, committed in the course of the same transaction in which the official duty is performed or purports to be performed. The right approach to the import of these words lies between two extremes. While on the one hand, it is not every offence committed by a public servant while engaged in the performance of his official duty, which is entitled to the protection of Section 197(1), an Act constituting an offence, directly and reasonably connected with his official duty will require sanction for prosecution and the said provision.' Use of the expression, 'official duty' implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public officer in the course of his service and that it should have been in discharge of his duty. The Section does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty. 12. It has been widened further by extending protection to even those acts or omissions which are done in purported exercise of official duty. That is under the colour of office. Official duty therefore implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in course of his service and such act or omission must have been performed as part of duty which further must have been official in nature. The Section has, thus, to be construed strictly, while determining its applicability to any act or omission in course of service. Its operation has to be limited to those duties which are discharged in course of duty. The Section has, thus, to be construed strictly, while determining its applicability to any act or omission in course of service. Its operation has to be limited to those duties which are discharged in course of duty. But once any act or omission has been found to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of his duty then it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned. For instance a public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent the Section has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. But once it is established that act or omission was done by the public servant while discharging his duty then the scope of its being official should be construed so as to advance the objective of the Section in favour of the public servant. Otherwise the entire purpose of affording protection to a public servant without sanction shall stand frustrated. For instance a police officer in discharge of duty may have to use force which may be an offence for the prosecution of which the sanction may be necessary. But if the same officer commits an act in course of service but not in discharge of his duty and without any justification therefore then the bar u/s 197 of the Code is not attracted. To what extent an act or omission performed by a public servant in discharge of his duty can be deemed to be official was explained by this Court in Matajog Dobey Vs. H.C. Bhari ( AIR 1956 SC 44 ), thus: '17 The offence alleged to have been committed (by the accused) must have something to do, or must be related in some manner with the discharge of official duty...there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable (claim) but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty......” 26. Now, on above factual and legal matrix, if we examine the respondent’s complaint with regard to see whether the act done by the petitioner falls within the ambit of official duty or not, this Court has to look into the contents of the complaint precisely para 8 to 11, which are extracted below:- ^^8- fd] vfHk;qDr ds }kjk ifjoknh dks nh tkus okyh vuSfrd /kefd;ka QyLo:i Lo- Jherh iqjhnsoh tkSts Lo- ojh;ynkl tsBkuh ds }kjk fu"ikfnr bPNki= ftls Jheku~ r`rh; O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k jk;iqj N-x- ds le{k lk{khx.kksa ds }kjk Áekf.kr fd;k x;k gS] ftldh dafMdk ^^c** varxZr 1 esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa ,oa dk;kZy; fo'ks"k {ks= fodkl Ákf/kdj.k fHkykbZ&nqxZ ds Áek.ki= Øekad@pkj@rhu@343@89@1338 fnukad 21-04-89 ds nLrkostksa ,oa vU; LoRo@vf/kdkj;qDr nLrkostksa ds rjQ /;ku fnyk;k x;k ijUrq vfHk;qDr }kjk migkl ,oa O;aX;kRed ,oa viekfur dkfjr djrs gq;s Lo- iqjhnsoh tsBkuh dks bPNki= fu"iknu djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gksus ,oa lacaf/kr vU; nLrkostksa ds QthZ rFkk dwVd`r gksus ds vykok ifjoknh dh iakp iqf=;ksa dks laifRr esa vf/kdkj ugh fn;s tkus dks fof/k fo:) djkj nsrs gq;s ifjokfjd ekeyksa esa vdkj.k n[ky fn;k x;kA 9- fd] vfHk;qDr }kjk ifjoknh ,oa mldh /keZiRuh dks /kedksrs ,oa psrkouh nsrs gq;s ^^f'ko esfMdy LVkslZ** fHkykbZ&3 rFkk Lo- MkW- ojh;ynkl tsBkuh ,oa mldh /keZiRuh Lo- iqjhnsoh tsBkuh }kjk vftZr ,oa fufeZr vkoklh; edku esa Áos'k ugh djus rFkk bl laca/k esa vfuy tsBkuh ,oa mldh /keZiRuh }kjk fdlh Hkh Ádkj dh f'kdk;rsa ÁkIr gksus dh voLFkk esa ifjoknh ,oa mldh /keZiRuh ds fo:) vijkf/kd ekeyk cuokdj mUgsa tsy fHktok;s tkus dh /kefd;ka nh xbZ rFkk vU; fofHkUu rjhdksa ls Mjk;k /kedk;k x;kA 10- fd] vfHk;qDr tks fd] ,d ftEesnkj iqfyl vf/kdkjh in esa inLFk gS ds }kjk in dk nq:i;ksx dj ifjoknh ,oa mldh /keZiRuh dks mUgsa ds vf/kdkj;qDr py&vpy laifRr;ksa ds mi;ksx&miksx fd;s tkus ij vojks/k mRiUu dj fn;s tkus ls {kqC/k ,oa gSjku gksdj rFkk muds d`R;ksa dks fof/k fo:) ,oa euekuk djkj djrs gq;s ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd nqxZ ds le{k fnukad 13-05-2019 dks ÁLrqr f'kdk;r ds layXu nLrkostksa dks voyksdu djk;s tkus ij vfHk;qDr vR;ar Øksf/kr gksdj iqfyl onhZ esa layXu use IysV dks fudky dj Vscy esa iVdrs gq;s U;k;ky; ,oa 'kklu ds le{k dksbZ Hkh f'kdk;r djus ij mldk dksbZ dqN ugha fcxkM+us dk dFku vge~iwoZd fd;k x;k@dgk x;kA 11- fd] ifjoknh }kjk vfHk;qDr ds d`R;ksa ls vR;ar gSjku ,oa vk'p;Zpfdr gksdj muds }kjk nckoiwoZd dFku ,oa vkns'k dks fof/k fo:) gksus ,oa Hkkjr dk lafo/kku rFkk iqfyl Lfkiuk vf/kfu;e ,oa fu;e ds foijhr gksus ds vfrfjDr ekuuh; lqÁhedksVZ }kjk fn;s x;s fn'kk&funsZ'k ds fo:)@foijhr gksus dk gokyk fn;k x;k] ijUrq muds }kjk vius gV ,oa d`R;ksa ds Áfr ujeh ugh cjrus ij ifjoknh }kjk iSr`d O;olk; f'ko esfMdy LVkslZ ls ÁkIr vk; L=ksr dk can gks tkus ls f'kdk;rdrkZ ,oa mlds ifjokfjd lnL;ksa dks viw.kZ vkfFkZd] ekufld ,oa 'kkjhfjd {kfr;ak mRiUu gksus dk gokyk fn;k ,oa jge dh nqgkbZ nh xbZ ijUrq vfHk;qDr dk fu.kZr; vVy ,oa lDr jgk** 27. From perusal of complaint, it is apparent that respondent No. 1 has made an attempt to create pressure on the authorities by writing complaint. The respondent No. 1 in the complaint has mentioned that the petitioner has removed his nameplate and thrown it in the table by observing that no one can take action against him on his complaint. This has annoyed the petitioner. It cannot be presumed that any police officer will remove his name plate and throw it on the table. The contents of the complaint seem to be hypothetical, which cannot be relied upon by a prudent person. The allegation that the petitioner has interfered in family dispute, which is beyond his duty, cannot be accepted as it is one of the duties of police officer to maintain peace and harmony in his area as per clause, where he was posted. Since, it is purely property dispute between respondent No. 1 and his brother, therefore, it is clear that the complainant has filed the complaint to create pressure over the Government official. 28. On bare perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant, it is crystal clear that the alleged incident is said to have been done while discharging the official duty as per clause (C ) of Section 23 of Police Act 2007 by the petitioner and there is nexus between action done by petitioner and official duty as petitioner has to maintain law and order by persuading respondent No. 1 and his brother, to maintain peace , law and order as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner has transgressed his limit while hearing the complainant/ respondent No. 1. 29. From perusal for the complaint, it is apparent that it was purely discharge of official duty and it cannot be presumed that the police person will remove his nameplate and will throw it on the table. This part of the complaint seems to be false and concocted theory projected by respondent No. 1, as the Superintendent of Police in his report dated 29.12.2009 has also recorded finding that no such incident took place and the allegations made by respondent No. 1 were incorrect. 30. This part of the complaint seems to be false and concocted theory projected by respondent No. 1, as the Superintendent of Police in his report dated 29.12.2009 has also recorded finding that no such incident took place and the allegations made by respondent No. 1 were incorrect. 30. From above discussions and considering the material on record and law on this subject, it is held that the petitioner has acted while discharging his official duty and has not transgressed his limit while discharging his official duty, therefore, sanction is very much required. The complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Sections 166, 339, 499 & 506 of I.P.C. is an abuse of process of law, therefore, the Complaint Case No. 3330/2011 against the petitioner as well as the order passed by the learned Revisional court dismissing the revision, are liable to be and are hereby quashed. 31. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. 32. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate for closure of Complaint Case No. 3330/2011 (Manohar Jethani Vs. Rakesh Kumar Joshi).