Brief Facts
- The present criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, who was posted as Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Masooda, District Ajmer, challenging the order dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beawar, whereby cognizance was taken against him for offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC, and the order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the revisional court affirming the same.
- The criminal complaint was filed by respondent No.2 alleging that he, along with two others, was illegally detained in the police station on 22.05.2003 and was abused and beaten by the petitioner. It was alleged that injuries were caused to the complainant and another person during such detention.
- During investigation, it came on record that the complainant and the other two persons were lawfully arrested under Section 151 Cr.P.C. to prevent breach of peace, were produced before the SDM on 23.05.2003, and had accepted the proceedings under Sections 107/116(3) read with 151 Cr.P.C. The police submitted a negative final report. Despite the same, the Magistrate took cognizance for offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC without insisting upon prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., holding that such acts were not part of official duty.
- Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court contending that the alleged acts were inseparably connected with discharge of official duty and that cognizance without sanction was barred.
Issues
- Whether cognizance taken against a public servant for offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC without prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was sustainable in law?
- Whether the High Court could exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. despite dismissal of the revision petition?
Held
- The Court examined the scope and object of Section 197 Cr.P.C., the scope of intereference under section 482 CrPC and placing reliance upon Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay [AIR (1955) SC 287], Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan [(1973) 2 SCC701], State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew [(2004)8 SCC 40], Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand [(2012) 12 SCC72], D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain [(2020) 7 SCC 694] and other binding precedents, the Court held that the acts complained of were reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty. The Court further held that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was a mandatory precondition and cognizance taken without such sanction was ex facie illegal. Accordingly, the cognizance order and the revisional order were quashed, while granting liberty to revive the proceedings if valid sanction was obtained within the stipulated time. The findings of the Court are as under:
- Considering the entirety of facts and taking them cumulatively, the acts done by the petitioner, have been purportedly done in discharge of his duties as SHO. It is not only the arrest of complainant-respondent No.2 with other two persons, was made, but the investigation from them was also carried out and thereafter, criminal complaint for offences under Sections 107/116(3) read with 151 Cr.PC was filed against them. Although, allegations of abusing, misbehaving and beating the complainant by the petitioner, do not inspire confidence, even on the basis of presumption yet even if for the sake of arguments, such allegations are taken on their face value, and considered with other allegations, the true position transpires that the entire series of events have nexus with each other and the action of petitioner was done in discharge of his official duties. For the sake of arguments, if any part of act of petitioner, is treated to be in excess of his duty in mistaken belief, then also in the backdrop of admitted fact that petitioner did acts being posted as SHO of Police Station, he should not be deprived from the protection of law as available to a public servant against his criminal prosecution by virtue of Section 197 Cr.PC.
- Having enlightened with the proposition of law, as referred hereinabove, and testing the present case on that anvil, as also keeping in mind the uncontroverted facts that arrest & detention of complainant-respondent No.2, was made by petitioner in due discharge of his official duties as SHO and after completing investigation, the criminal complaint under Sections 107/116(3)read with 151 Cr.PC was filed against him on next day before the Court of SDM, whereupon, he accepted his guilt and furnished bail bonds to maintain peace and tranquility as much as no complaint was made on the first day about any maltreatment or beatings given to him by the petitioner in the Police Station, rather allegations have been made after four days of his release by way of filing present complaint on 27.05.2003, this Court finds that entire acts have connection and nexus to each other and were done in discharge of official duties by the petitioner, therefore, dispensing with the mandatory requirement of provision of sanction as envisaged u/s. 197 Cr.PC against the petitioner, would lead to failure of justice. Admittedly, the complainant-respondent No.2 and other two persons never questioned the proceedings commenced and concluded against them under Sections107/116(3) read with 151 Cr.PC and they abide themselves with the order of SDM. In such facts and circumstances, taking cognizance for offence under Sections 323 and 504 IPC against the petitioner, without insisting for sanction, which is statutorily required in view of Section 197 Cr.PC, may not be countenanced and without sanction, the prosecution of petitioner may not be permitted.
Relevant Para No.
- Paras 13 to 16, 24 and 25