Point of law: Even if same is in excess in discharge of public duty, and even if the said act is done in reasonable action for his official duty, the police officer has to be protected.

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to set aside the order of issue of process dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Sindhanur in Crl.Case No.804/2018 (arising out of Private Complaint No.406/2012) against the petitioners to face trial for the offences punishable under sections 341, 342, 364A, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 has filed a private complaint which is numbered as PC No.406/2012 before the Trial Court and the learned Magistrate after receiving the complaint took cognizance and proceeded to hold an enquiry and accordingly examined the complainant as CW.1 and also examined one witness as CW.2 and thereafter issued process against these petitioners vide order dated 30.08.2018 and hence, the present petition is filed seeking relief of quashing of issuance of process against these petitioners. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the daughter-in-law and uncle of daughter-in-law of the respondent No.2. The allegation made against these petitioners that at the instance of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 subjected the respondent No.2 for abuse and without registering the case brought them to the police station and pressurized to pay an amount of Rs.30,00,000/-in favour of petitioner No.1 and also an allegation is made that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 wrongfully confined respondent No.2 in conspiracy with petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are Additional Superintendent of Police (for short ‘the ASP’) and Head Constable CPI and even threatened on 29.09.2012 and made them to sit till late night and asked them to come on the next date along with money.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 in discharge of their public duties in pursuance of the representation given to the Superintendent of Police dated 14.09.2012 an intimation was sent to the respondent No.2 for enquiry but inspite of the intimation was given the respondent No.2 did not turn up and thereafter he was secured. The learned counsel would also submit that in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of dowry harassment and other matrimonial cases, the police cannot register the case and the receipt of the complaint only for the purpose of enquiry, they were secured when the respondent No.1 did not appear inspite of intimation given. Hence, the very initiation of criminal prosecution against the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 who are discharging their public duties consequent upon the representation which was given to the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police in turn directed the CPI Central to look into the matter and hence, it cannot be termed as powers exercising by petitioner Nos.3 and 4 is excess.

5. In support of his argument the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain reported in AIR 2020 SC 3292 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court discussing Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act (in short ‘the KP Act’) with regard to taking of cognizance is concerned in the complaint alleging police excesses while complainant was in police custody if any previous sanction is obtained before taking cognizance against the accused police officer. The Hon'ble Apex Court in detail discussed in paragraph-71 that even if the act alleged is in excess of discharging of public duties they get the police protection and if that act is done, in connection with reasonable act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not to be a ground to deprive the policemen of the protection of government sanction for initiating criminal action against him.

6. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court