IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8065 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE MUDDUMADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SULLIA P.S. DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PSI SHRAVANABELAGOLA POLICE STATION, CHENNARAYAPATTANA TALUK, HASSAN-573135.
2. SRI. PAUL PRIYAKUMAR S/O SRI. V. SAMUEL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADABA P.S.
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PSI MADIWALA POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560068.
3. SRI. S. ANAND S/O SRI. SHAHUKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAMPYA P.S.
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PSI, TALAKADU POLICE STATION, T.NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE-571 122.
4. SRI. M. PRABHAKAR, S/O SRI. A.M. NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RETED. ADDL. SUPDT. OF POLICE, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA. RESIDING AT # 10, GM RAMAKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-94.
5. RAMESH. K.
S/O LATE BABUGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PC, SULLIA POLICE STATION, PRESENTLY WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE, AT BANTWAL TOWN POLICE STATION, DAKSHINA KANNADA.-574211.
6. SRI. K.M. PALANI VELU S/O SRI. LATE M.MUTHUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, POLICE CONSTABLE, SULLIA POLICE STATION SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA.
PRESENTLY WORKING AT SUBRAMANYA POLICE STATION, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574238.
7. SRI. KURIYAKOSE S/O SRI. A.C. CHARIYAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, HEAD CONSTABLE, KADABA POLICE STATION, PUTTOR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA. PRESENTLY R/AT KODANAKERI HOUSE, IHOOR VILLAGE, SUNKADAKATTE POST, PUTTOR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA.-574201.
(BY SRI: KASHINATH J D, ADVOCATE) AND GURUPRASAD S/O RAGAVE GOWDA, MEKARJEE MANE, AMARA MUDNOORU VILLAGE, DODDATHGOTA POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA. DISTRICT-574201.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: P P HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER TO TAKE COGNIZANCE DATED:31.7.13 IN PCR NO.98/12 PASSED BY THE JMFC, SULLIA AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN PCR NO.98/12 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA., AND PER ANNEXURE- B.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the order dated 31.07.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge & JMFC, Sullia, Dakshina Kannada, in PCR No.98/2012 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 330, 504, 506 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners herein and issued summons to them.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners were the Police Officers working in various police stations within the limits of Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. Respondent herein lodged a private complaint against the petitioners on 05.07.2012 alleging that on 14.12.2011, in the night at about 1.00 a.m., when he was on his way to Bengaluru in his Maruthi Car, the Sub-Inspector of Police- i.e., accused No.1, and other policemen stopped his car and he was dragged out of the car and was assaulted and thereafter he was pushed into the police van and was taken to Sullia Police Station. Even in the van, he was abused and assaulted and while getting down from the van, once again he was assaulted and threatened that he will be killed in an encounter. It is further alleged that he was assaulted on his thighs, cheeks and waist and was kicked with boots and tortured in the police station. Next day in the morning, at 8.00 a.m., he was produced before the Magistrate at his residence and on 17.12.2011, he obtained bail.
3. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences and directed registration of the case. Thereafter, learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and four witnesses and by the impugned order took cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 330, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against all the petitioners viz., accused Nos.1 to 8. The petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the order of taking cognizance against them in respect of the above offences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in SRI. LABHURAM vs. SRI. PRAKASH HEGDE in Crl.P.No.5865/2013 dated 22.08.2014 and in SRI RAVI KUMAR AND OTHERS vs. PRAKASH HEGDE DATED 05.03.2019 passed in Crl.P.No.8061/2013 and connected matters would submit that the alleged acts even if assumed to be true, having taken place while discharge of duties by the petitioners as Police Officers, who were involved in the investigation in Cr.No.206/2011 registered in Sullia police station as per the say of the complainant himself, the prosecution of the petitioners without prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is legally not tenable. Further, he would submit that Cr.No.206/2011 was registered in respect of the incident that had taken place on 14.11.2011 at about 8.15 p.m. In the said incident one Naveen Rai Menla and Ashok Adkaru intercepted a moving car at Jalsoor village and found two girls and two boys of different religion travelling together. They took the inmates to Sullia Police Station. On enquiry, SHO having found that the inmates of the said car were majors and on their own accord, they were travelling in the car in search of job, they were let off. The aforesaid Naveen Rai Menal and Ashok Adkaru mobilized a huge mob and demanded the police to hand over the aforesaid two boys traveling in the said car to their custody. Since the police declined, the mob gathered at the instance of aforesaid Naveen Rai Menal and Ashok Adkaru and started pelting stones at the police station and in the process injured the police officials.
During the incidence, lati charge was ordered and in the process some persons were injured. In respect of this incident, a case was registered in Cr.No.206/2011 and the petitioners herein arrested the respondent/complainant in connection with the said crime. Under the said circumstances, the petitioners are also entitled to protection under Section 132 of Cr.P.C. Thus he contends that registration of the case against the petitioners without prior sanction under Section 197 and 132 Cr.P.C. is wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court.
5. Refuting the submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the specific allegations made in the complaint and would submit that the said acts committed by the petitioners are not protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C. or under Section 132 Cr.P.C. The police have acted beyond the scope of their duties and assaulted and tortured the complainant in the police station and therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the alleged offences and hence there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate warranting interference by this Court.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
6. A reading of the complaint indicates that on the following day of arrest of the complainant, he was produced before the Magistrate. Though it is stated in the complaint that the complainant obtained bail on 17.12.2011 and he complained the matter to the Magistrate and he was referred to hospital for medical examination, the complainant did not produce any document in support of these averments along with the complaint. During his sworn statement, the complainant appears to have examined PW-5 and through him, a wound certificate appears to have been marked. The learned Magistrate has referred to this wound certificate and has noted that the complainant was examined on 15.12.2011 at about 10.25 a.m., According to the complainant, he obtained bail on 17.12.2011 which means that he was in custody of the police until 17.12.2011. Under the said circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the complainant has complained of about the alleged ill-treatment to the Magistrate and that he was referred to the hospital for medical examination as contended. Be that as it may, a reading of the complaint indicates that the complainant was arrested in connection with Cr.No.206/2011 registered in Sullia Police Station. In respect of the said incident, some other accused viz., one Prakash Hedge had sought quashing of the prosecution making identical allegations that he was tortured and ill-treated in the police station. Considering the case pleaded by him, placing reliance on the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF ORISSA THROUGH KUMAR RAGHVENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS vs.
GANESH CHANDRA JEW, (2004) 8 SCC 40, it was held that the facts narrated in the complaint disclosed that the acts done by the petitioners were reasonably connected with the performance of their official duties and in that view of the matter, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners were quashed by order dated 05.03.2019 in Cr.P.No.8061/2013 and connected matters. The principle laid down in the above cases is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the very same occurrence, the complainant herein was also arrested in connection with Cr.No.206/2011. The averments made in the complaint, prima facie disclose that the alleged acts were committed by the petitioners while in discharge of their official duties.
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 the decision referred above has held as under:-
“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 allegations 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.
The facts of the instant case bear similarity to the above case. The facts narrated in the complaint disclose that the acts committed by the petitioners are reasonably connected with the performance of their official duties. Under the said circumstances, even if they have committed any excesses, the same having been committed while discharging the official duties, they are entitled for protection under law and therefore, no criminal proceedings could have been launched against the petitioners without prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. To this extent, petition deserved to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 31.07.2013 and the consequent proceedings initiated against the petitioners in PCR No.98/2012 are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-