A prosecution that began in 2006 has ended in 2026 on a missing sanction, the Patna High Court holding that “The mere allegation that the petitioner had exceeded his authority” does not by itself strip a public servant of Section 197 CrPC protection.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Patna: A former Anchal Adhikari of Keoti in Darbhanga district has won the quashing of the order refusing his discharge and the order framing charges against him, the Patna High Court holding that the Magistrate took cognizance without the previous sanction that Section 197 of the CrPC requires before a public servant is prosecuted for acts done in the discharge of official duty [Shrivastava Shilbhadra v. The State of Bihar and Another].
Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition on 6 October 2026, setting aside the orders of 30 January 2019 and 22 June 2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Darbhanga, in Tr. No. 609/19.
How the case reached the High Court
The case traces back to PS Keoti Case No. 64/2006. The petitioner, then serving as Anchal Adhikari, is alleged to have helped secure a rent receipt for Bibi Kaniz Fatima by hiding the pendency of Title Appeal No. 8 of 1988 and by preparing false and forged documents. Those are allegations only, and none has been tested at trial.
On 30 January 2019 the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Darbhanga, turned down the petitioner’s discharge application, and on 22 June 2019 charges were framed against him. He took both orders to the High Court.
ALSO READ: Public Officer Exercising Quasi-Judicial Functions Deemed to ‘Judge’: Patna High Court
Protection attaches to the act, not the label
The Court first explained why the provision exists:
“The object of Section 197 of the CrPC is to protect a public servant from vexatious criminal proceedings in respect of acts done or purported to be done in discharge of his official duty.”
On the argument that the officer had overstepped his powers, it said such an allegation does not remove that protection:
“The mere allegation that the petitioner had exceeded his authority or had acted improperly in discharge of his official duty would not, by itself, take away the protection available under Section 197 of the CrPC.”
Sanction was never obtained
The High Court found that the allegation arose out of an order passed in an official capacity, with a clear and reasonable connection between the act complained of and the petitioner’s official duty. As to sanction, it recorded that the position was not in dispute:
“Admittedly, no previous sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was obtained…the learned Magistrate was required to consider the requirement of previous sanction.”
For this approach the judgment cites S.K. Zutshi v. Bimal Debnath ((2004) 8 SCC 31) and State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew ((2004) 8 SCC 40).
Result
The orders of 30 January 2019 and 22 June 2019 were set aside and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were quashed, the Court closing with the words, “The present petition stands allowed.” The ruling turns on the absent sanction. It records no finding on whether the allegations are true, since they were never tried.
Why the judgment matters
For a public servant, the sanction requirement under Section 197 of the CrPC is a threshold check and not a technicality to be raised once charges are framed. Before taking cognizance, a Magistrate is expected to ask whether the act complained of is connected with official duty, and an accusation that the officer exceeded his powers does not answer that question by itself.
The case also shows how much a sanction point can undo when it is not examined at the outset: a prosecution that began in 2006 was brought down in 2026.
Case Title: Shrivastava Shilbhadra v. The State of Bihar and Another [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27022 of 2019]
Bench: Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: October 6, 2026
Appearances: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner; Mr. Navin Kr. Pandey, APP, for the State