JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order taking cognizance vide order dated 06.06.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 171 of 2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Koderma whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 341/323/376/427/380/504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and also to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the said Complaint Case. 3. The brief facts of the case is that at about 10:30 P.M. on 03.01.2019, the petitioners committed gang rape upon the prosecutrix together, in her house and upon hue and cry being raised by the prosecutrix, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the prosecutrix came to the place of occurrence- which is one of the rooms of the house of the informant and tried to rescue the informant being further ravished but they were also assaulted by the petitioners and the petitioners went on ravishing the complainant. There is also allegation that the petitioners have committed theft of utensils, T.V. and other articles by taking the same after loading the same in a jeep. There is further allegation against the petitioners of criminally intimidating the complainant and her family members. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false. Police went to the house of the complainant on the basis of the written report submitted by Dipu Kumar Soni, owner of a jewelry and utensils shop and Shravan Kumar who is owner of a General Store. In connection of the said theft, F.I.R. No. 02/2019 has been lodged against unknown persons for having committed the offences punishable under Section 461/379 of the Indian Penal Code, in which case the son of the opposite party no.2 was charge sheeted in Telaiya P.S. Case No. 162 of 2018 for having committed the offences punishable under Section 379/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant-opposite party no.2 filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Koderma on 28.01.2019 alleging therein that the petitioners on 23.01.2019 took away the amount kept for wedding of her niece along with the household articles and they lodged a false case against her nephew. The complainant-opposite party no.2 filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Koderma on 28.01.2019 alleging therein that the petitioners on 23.01.2019 took away the amount kept for wedding of her niece along with the household articles and they lodged a false case against her nephew. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are police officers and they are protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C. while functioning as a public servant in discharge of their official duties. It is further submitted that the complaint is a counter blast to Jainagar (Telaiya O.P.) P.S. Case No. 03 of 2019. 5. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana and Others V. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this case is squarely covered by the Clause-7 of Para -102 of the said Judgment which reads as under:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. It is then submitted that this is a malicious proceeding. It is then submitted that this is a malicious proceeding. It is next submitted that the son of the complainant is a history sheeter being involved in several cases including cases of theft. It is then submitted that the cognizance order has been passed mechanically in a routine manner without application of judicial mind. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the Judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amit Sinha & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr., in Cr.M.P. No. 3054 of 2013 dated 04.01.2022 wherein in the facts of that case, the Coordinate Bench allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the Judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hitendra Goyal & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 905 of 2010 dated 22.03.2021 wherein the coordinate bench quashed the proceedings initiated against the Officers of the Indian Railways. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 9. The learned Spl. P.P. defends the impugned order but submits that the Superintend of Police upon getting information from the complainant got an inquiry conducted and found the allegations to be false, hence did not took any action on the same but the learned trial court has proceeded in the right manner as there is ample material in the complaint to constitute the offences for which cognizance has been taken. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 10. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Fakhruzamma v. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in (2013) 15 SCC 552 , para -7 & 8 of which reads as under:- “7. Rule 824 of the Jharkhand Police Manual prescribes different departmental punishments, including the punishment of dismissal and removal, to be inflicted upon the police officers up to the rank of Inspector of Police. The relevant rule for our purpose is Rule 825, which is given below: “825. Officers empowered to impose punishment.— (a) No police officer shall be dismissed or compulsorily retired by an authority subordinate to that which appointed him. The relevant rule for our purpose is Rule 825, which is given below: “825. Officers empowered to impose punishment.— (a) No police officer shall be dismissed or compulsorily retired by an authority subordinate to that which appointed him. (b) The Inspector General may award to any police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent any one or more of the punishments in Rule 825. (c) *** (d) A Superintendent may impose on any police officer subordinate to him and of and below the rank of Sub-Inspector any or more of the punishments in Rule 824 except dismissal; removal and compulsory retirement in the case of Sub-Inspector or Assistant Sub-Inspector. It shall be kept in mind that if any enquiry has been initiated by the District Magistrate, a report of the result shall be sent to him for information. If required, the file of departmental proceeding shall also be sent with it. (e)-(f) ***” Rule 825 clauses (a) and (b) confers power on the Inspector General of Police or the Deputy Inspector General of Police to pass orders for removal of police officers up to the rank of Inspector. Before passing the order of removal, the Inspector General of Police or the Deputy Inspector General of Police need not obtain prior approval of the State Government. 8. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in Nagraj case [Nagraj v. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 269 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 161 : (1964) 3 SCR 671 ] , wherein this Court was called upon to examine the scope of Section 197 CrPC read with Sections 4(c), 8, 26(1) and 3 of the Mysore Police Act, 1908. Interpreting the abovementioned provisions, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that an Inspector General of Police can dismiss a Sub-Inspector and, therefore, no sanction of the State Government for prosecution of the appellant was necessary even if he had committed the offences alleged while acting or purporting to act in discharge of this official duty.” Submits that an Inspector General of Police can dismiss the Sub-Inspector and therefore, no sanction of the State Government for prosecution of the Sub-Inspector was necessary. It is next submitted that as the petitioners are not such a public servant who cannot be removed from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government, hence Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not attracted in this case. It is next submitted that contents of the statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation, statement of the inquiry witnesses and the complaint case goes to show that the petitioners have committed the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Magistrate and it is highly unlikely that the complainant would have gone to the Superintendent of Police with the complaint that she has been ravished by the petitioners immediately on the next day of occurrence and even though, undisputedly the complaint reveals a cognizable offence, there is no explanation forthcoming as to why no F.I.R. was instituted and this only corroborates the case of the complainant that she was ravished by the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, so far as the sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is concerned, such sanction is required if the accused person is a Judge or Magistrate or in case of a Public Servant, he is such a Public Servant , who is not removable from his service, save by or with the sanction of Government. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Fakru Jamal Vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) that a Sub-Inspector of Police can be removed from his service by the Inspector General of Police and for removal of a Sub-Inspector by the Inspector General of Police, sanction of the Government is not required. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a case where the cognizance can be held to be bad in law because of not obtaining sanction for prosecution more so because, there is no direct and reasonable nexus between the offences committed and the discharge of the alleged official duties of the petitioners, which is a sine-qua-non for attracting the provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and another v. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 . 13. It is also a settled principle of law that the defence of the petitioner and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be job of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501 . 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 reiterated the settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- “Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) 15. It is also a settled principle of law that whether a criminal proceeding was malicious or not, is not required to be evaluated at the stage of issuing summons and the same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Aryan Singh etc. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, para 11 of which reads as under :- “11. One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. It is a settled principle of law that enmity is a double edged weapon. There is no dispute that the contents of the statement on the solemn affirmation, contents of the complaint and the statement of the inquiry witnesses goes to show that petitioners have committed rape and other offences for which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate and there is no quarrel in respect of the same. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that merely because a case was pending against the son of the complainant, that is not a reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding more so when admittedly the victim went to the Superintend to Police with the complaint of commission of rape upon the prosecutrix, immediately after the occurrence. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 17. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 18. In view of disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition, the interlocutory application no. 10062 of 2023 is disposed of being infructuous.