Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19319 of 2011 Applicant :- Chandra Dev Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sameer Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant is present but none is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2 whereas name of V.Singh is shown. Learned AGA is also present.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA and perused the record.
A complaint case was filed by Ram Lal (opposite party no. 2) against Vibhuti Mishra and four others and the Trial Court after taking evidence under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. summoned the applicant along with the other persons under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was Sub Inspector in Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi, at the relevant time. An application was filed by Vibhuti Mishra (Bhabuti Mishra) at Police Station Shivpur on 06.02.2010 against opposite party no. 2 Ram Lal and two others. The S.O. concerned directed the applicant to inquire the matter and do the needful vide order dated 06.02.2010 which is enclosed as Annexure-6 to the application. In pursuance to the directions given by the S.O. concerned, the applicant went to the place of incident and after that he had submitted a report before the S.O. which is annexed as part of Annexure-6. On the basis of the report submitted by the applicant, parties were challaned under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. and this fact is also admitted in the complaint itself. The act of the applicant was official work and has been done on the directions of the S.O. of the Police Station Shivpur. The allegations against the applicant in the complaint in this regard are absolutely false and nothing like that happened there. The complaint made by the opposite party no. 2 was just to pressurize the applicant as while performing his official duty, he challaned the parties including opposite party no. 2 in the matter. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that charges levelled against the applicant are general in nature and that cannot be said to be an offence as has been mentioned in Section 95 IPC. The act of the applicant while discharging his official duty is covered under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
Learned AGA opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the applicant has exceeded his official duty and went beyond the same and he cannot be protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C. as well as Section 95 IPC.
From the bald reading of the complaint it can be said that the applicant went to the place of incident and threaten the complainant to do or not to do certain acts. It is also mentioned in the complaint that the applicant came to the place of incident along with Vibhuti Mishra and one police personnel without any authority.
The allegations in the complaint are not substantiated on the evidence upon the record.
The applicant went on the place of incident only on the directions of the S.O. and after inquiry he submitted the report and also challaned both the parties including the opposite party no. 2 as well.
Applicant has been implicated as he challaned the opposite party no. 2 also. Gravity of the allegations show that they are trivial in nature and such directions are being given by police personnel to keep peace and maintenance of the situation. In the present matter allegations against the application is squarely protected by Section 95 of I.P.C.
Moreover, while performing the official duty in case one has exceeded limit and same is within reasonable limit then act of person is protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C. In the present matter applicant was doing his official function, although no excess is being committed, if presumed to have exceeded limit, his act is protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Without the permission of the State, cognizance against the applicant could not have been taken and the cognizance against the applicant is barred under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 786 of 2010, Ram Lal vs. Vibhuti Mishra and others so far it relates to applicant under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC pending in the Court of J.M. 2nd, Varanasi are hereby quashed.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 VR