JUDGMENT : AMBUJ NATH, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Spl.P.P. for the state. 2. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing of the order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the learned court of Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Criminal Revision No.284/2018, whereby and wherein the Learned Court has been pleased to allow the Criminal Revision preferred by the opposite party no. 2 against the summoning order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1326/2018. 3. The petitioner has filed the complaint case alleging therein that on 08.04.2018 at about 04:45 P.M., while he was returning home, he was apprehended by the police near Jorapokhar police station who were checking motorcycle riders whether they were wearing helmet or not. There was some altercation between the petitioner and the police personnels. 4. The petitioner was dragged inside the police station and was verbally abused and physically assaulted by the opposite party no. 2 Jai Krishna by a danda. It is also alleged that all his valuables, were snatched and thereafter he was confined in the police Hazat. 5. It is further alleged that on the next morning, his brother came to the police station and questioned his illegal detention. The petitioner was again assaulted in the police station and finally, he was released on personal bond of rupees 50,000/-. After inquiry, the learned Magistrate, found the occurrence to be prima facie true under sections 323/ 341/ 325/ 326/ 379/ 307 of the Indian Penal Code and issued processes for appearance of the opposite party no. 2. 6. The opposite party no. 2, preferred a Criminal Revision before the Session Court vide Criminal Revision No. 284 of 2018, which was allowed and the order issuing process for appearance of the petitioner under section 204 Cr.P.C. was quashed. 7. From the perusal of the statement of the petitioner, recorded on S.A, it appears that he has admitted that he was wearing the helmet at the time, when checking was going on. It also appears that he was directed to pay fine of rupees 600/- in the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Dhanbad. He has stated that he was assaulted due to which his jaw was fractured. It also appears that he was directed to pay fine of rupees 600/- in the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Dhanbad. He has stated that he was assaulted due to which his jaw was fractured. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 08.04.2018 and as per the case of the petitioner, he was released from police station Hazat in the morning of 09.04.2018, the medical prescriptions have been purportedly issued on 10.04.2018 and not on 9.04.2018. It further appears that the vehicle of the petitioner was seized on 08.04.2018 and it was released on 10.04.2018 8. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the petitioner was detained in police station as he was not wearing helmet. His motorcycle was also seized. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner did not go to hospital on 09.04.2018, just after he was released from police Hazrat. 9. The learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad while allowing the revision application of the O.P. No. 2 at paragraph 10 has held:- “In this context, I would like to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Shri S.K. Zutshi & Another Vs. Shri Bimal Debnath & Another, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/complainant also. In this case also, it has been opined by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "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. The question is not as to the nature of the offence such as whether the alleged offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon the offender being a public servant, but whether it was committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge of his official capacity. Before Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties”. 10. It further appears that the complaint case was also filed on 25.04.2018 that is after a delay of 15 days. 11. 10. It further appears that the complaint case was also filed on 25.04.2018 that is after a delay of 15 days. 11. In view of the aforesaid fact; I do not find any illegality in the order of learned Sessions Judge Dhanbad, passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 284/2018 setting aside the order passed by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad under section 204 Cr.P.C.. 12 Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. 13. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed off.