IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3302 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. R. SATISHKUMAR S/O.LATE R.K.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, POLICE INSPECTOR, KUVEMPUNAGAR POLICE STATION, MYSORE CITY, MYSORE-570001.
2. S N SREEKANTH S/O.LATE.S.A.NARANAPPA, AGED 38 YEARS, POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, CHAMARAJANAGARA RURAL POLICE STATION. CHAMARAJANAGARA-571313.
3. M C SUBBAIAH S/O.M.P.CHENGAPPA, AGED 50 YEARS, HEAD CONSTABLE, MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION, MADIKERI-571201.
4. S S SHIVANAND S/O.LATE SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED 42 YEARS, CONSTABLE, MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION, MADIKERI-571201.
5. V M LINGARAJU S/O.LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, CONSTABLE, MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION, MADIKERI-571201.
6. YOGESH KUMAR B L S/O.LATE LOKAIAH SHETTY, AGED 33 YEARS, CONSTABLE, BHAGAMANDALA POLICE STATION, BHAGAMANDALA-571247 KODAGU DISTRICT.
7. A KOTRESHA S/O.PEENNAPPA N AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, CONSTABLE, MARIAMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION, HOSPET TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583201.
8. NIRANJAN M N S/O.H.M.NARAYANA, AGED 33 YEARS, CONSTABLE, MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION, MADIKERI-571201.
(BY SRI: ABDULLA T I, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ... PETITIONERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
2. C A BHAGWAN S/O.APPAIAH AGED 29 YEARS, HODDUR VILLAGE AND PSOT, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: M.C.RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.848/2013 BY THE PRL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., MADIKERI INCLUDING TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS BY ITS ORDER DATED 20.06.2012 AND 02.04.2013 RESPECTIVELY.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners are the police officials. A private complaint came to be lodged against the petitioners and other accused persons alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 120B, 324, 330, 336, 337, 343, 348, 365 and 506(2) r/w 34 Indian Penal Code.
2. The material allegations against the petitioners herein are that on 17.07.2011 at about 8.15 p.m., accused No.3 and other accused persons illegally and forcibly took respondent No.2/complainant to their custody without informing his detention either to him or to his family members. Thereafter, he came to know that he was arrested in connection with FIR 134/2011 on the basis of the complaint lodged by his own brother C.G. Ramesh(accused No.9). It is alleged in the complaint that accused No.2 and other accused took the complainant in a car to Chettihalli Police Station and kept him in illegal detention for a period of four days. Accused No.1, CPI came to Chettihalli police station on 18.07.2011. He alongwith accused No.2 to 8 harassed him with third degree police atrocities. He was manhandled and assaulted by causing several injuries to his body.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners’ submits that the allegations made against the petitioners, even if accepted in its entirety, the alleged acts were committed by the police in discharge of their official duty. The complainant himself has alleged that he was picked up for investigation in FIR No.134/2011. Under the said circumstances, even if the petitioners have committed any excesses in discharge of their duties, their acts are protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and hence, without prior sanction of the competent authority, the prosecution of the petitioners is legally untenable and therefore, solely on this ground, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
4. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 however has argued in support of the impugned action contending that the allegations made in the complaint prima- facie disclose that the petitioners have acted beyond the scope of their duties and their acts are not covered under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and therefore, no prior sanction is necessary for prosecution of the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent and has not addressed any arguments.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
6. A reading of the private complaint clearly indicates that the alleged acts have been committed by the petitioners after the complainant was arrested in connection with the investigation in FIR 134/2011.
7. Dealing with the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court in STATE OF ORISSA THROUGH KUMAR RAGHVENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS vs. GANESH CHANDRA JEW, (2004) 8 SCC 40, has held as under:
“This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. “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 of the protection.”
In the said case, the accusations against the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that he exceeded in exercising his powers during investigation of a criminal case and assaulted the respondent in order to extract some information with regard to the death of one Sannamma and in that connection, the respondent was detained in the Police Station for some time. Considering the said allegations, in the light of the principles laid down in an earlier case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the whole allegation is on police excess in connection with the investigation of a criminal case. The said offensive conduct is reasonably connected with the performance of the official duty of the appellant and in that view of the matter, the proceedings against the appellant therein were quashed.
8. The facts narrated in the compliant manifestly discloses that the alleged acts were perpetrated by the petitioners in the course of discharge of their official duty. The alleged acts are reasonably connected with the performance of the official duty of the petitioners.
9. Hence following the ratio laid down in the above decision, it has to be held that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners without prior sanction of the competent authority under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. are illegal and amount to abuse of process of Court.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.848/2013 on the file of Principal Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Madikeri are quashed only in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
Liberty is reserved to the complainant to proceed against the petitioners after obtaining necessary sanction in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-