IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 133 OF 2012 Between:@ Mohammed Firoze … Petitioner/Accused V/s.
Gavini Srinivasa Rao & Anr. … Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Petitioner : Sri N. Ranga Reddy Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following: [order follows] HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 133 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in CC.No.456 of 2011 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, Prakasam district, in which cognizance is taken for offences under section 324 and 342 IPC.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner while working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala Rural Police Station registered a crime against brother of complainant by the first respondent herein and thereafter confined and beat the complainant i.e., first respondent herein, for which he filed a private complaint and the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, took cognizance for offences under section 342 and 324 IPC on the said private complaint. He submitted that since petitioner is a public servant without obtaining sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is bad and liable to be quashed. To support his arguments he relied on the following decisions :
[1]
1) PANCHAM LAL V/s. DADAN SINGH .
[2]
2) DR. A.N. SANYAL V/s. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR .
3 ) RIZWAN AHMED JAVED SHAIKH AND ORS. V/s.
JAMMAL
[3] PATEL AND ORS .
He submitted that there is no prima facie material against petitioner for the alleged offences and for these reasons the proceedings in CC.No. 456 of 2011 are liable to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that trial court after considering the complaint allegations and the sworn statements of LWs 1 to 4 took cognizance and the correctness of the allegations can be decided only during trial because LWs 1 to 4 in their sworn statement clearly supporting the complaint allegations. He further submitted that sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. is necessary if the act alleged was during course of discharge of official duties and according to complainant the act committed by the petitioner is beyond official duty. He further submitted that sanction can be obtained at any stage and that it would be a defence available for the petitioner and on that ground proceedings cannot be quashed. To support his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CHOUDHURY PARVEEN SULTANA V/s.
[4]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR .
4. From the facts of the case, allegation against petitioner is that he wrongfully confined the complainant, who gave a complaint against his own brother but after recording crime against the brother of the complainant, the petitioner herein has confined and beat the complainant which is beyond the scope of his official duty. This allegation cannot be decided on the basis of averments made in the complaint particularly when the averments are supported and corroborated with the sworn statements of four witnesses. As rightly pointed out by the advocate for the first respondent the grounds urged in the criminal petition are the defences available for the petitioner/accused which can be agitated during trial of the case.
5. On a scrutiny of the material on record, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate took cognizance after prima facie satisfying with the allegations particularly as the act committed by the petitioner is beyond the scope of his official duty, therefore, the same cannot be quashed by exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Advocate for petitioner submitted that now the petitioner is working at the same place as Inspector of Police, Chirala Rural Police Station, because he has to attend the duties, his presence for each and every adjournment may be dispensed with considering the official work and status of the petitioner.
7. Taking the facts of the case and the official duties of the petitioner into consideration, I feel that his presence for each and every adjournment can be dispensed with subject to condition that he shall appear before the trial court as and when directed by the trial court and also to co-operate with the trial court.
8. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR.
24/04/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 133 OF 2012
Circulation No.114 Date:24/04/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43
[1] ) 1979 CRL.L.J. 1018
[2] ) 1987 [2] PATNA HIGH COURT (Ranchi Bench)
[3] ) [2001] 5 SUPREME COURT CASES-7
[4] ) [2009] 3 SUPREME COURT CASES-398