The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of inordinate delay, the need for sanction for prosecuting police personnel, and the reasonable connection between alleged police excesses and their official duty.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners, being accused no. 7, 8 and 9 have invoked jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings against them in C.C.71/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Narasimharajapura. The events that have led to this petition being filed are as follows : -

2. The first petitioner is a Sub Inspector of Police and the petitioners 2 and 3 are police constables. The respondent is the complainant. The incident that the respondent has alleged to have taken place is that, on 6/10/2017, he and his friend, Jason, being Christians, belonging to the order Jehovah's Witnesses, went to the shop of the first accused, namely Smt. Sudha Pai for taking photocopy of a document. In the shop, the respondent picked up conversation with Sudha Pai on the subject of 'family' and in that course, gave her a tract entitled, "What is the Key to Happy Family life?". Smt. Sudha Pai suspected that the respondent and his friend were making attempt to convert her to Christianity and therefore called the police. The respondent and his friend were taken to police station, Balehonnur, where it is alleged that they were subjected to physical torture by the petitioners, and in this connection the respondent approached the court of JMFC on 19/9/2018 with a complaint under sec. 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, by his order dtd. 14/2/2019, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sec. 298 and 324 read with sec. 34 IPC and issued process against the petitioners. Thus the petitioners are before this court.

3. I have heard the arguments of Sri Suyog Herele, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mohan Doraiswamy for the respondent.

4. Sri Suyog Herele based his arguments on two points, namely, delay in lodging complaint and want of sanction as required under sec. 197 of Cr.P.C and sec. 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. On the first point, he submitted that, according to the contents of the complaint, it was on 6/10/2017 that the petitioners resorted to physically torturing the respondent in the police station. He submitted that while those allegations are totally false, till September of 2018, the respondent did not think of taking any action against the petitioners. If really any such incident as has been complained of by the respondent had taken place, he would not have kept quite. The inordinate delay itself is sufficient to doubt the truth in the contents of the complaint.

4.1. Second point of argument is that since the petitioners are all police personnel, and the allegations against them indicate an act being done in the course of discharging their official duties, they cannot be prosecuted without sanction as envisaged in sec. 170 of the Karnataka Police Act and sec. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case, the respondent has not taken sanction and for this reason, the complaint against the petitioners is vitiated. Therefore entire proceedings against the petitioners are to be quashed.

5. Sri Mohanraj Doraiswamy, learned counsel for the respondent, argued that the respondent visited the shop of Mrs. Sudha Pai to get a photo copy of a document, and that he never indulged in converting Sudha Pai into Christianity. He elaborated his argument in such way that, even otherwise, if the respondent wanted to propagate his religion, it has protection under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, being the members of the police force, should have afforded protection to the respondent in order to protect the fundamental right of the respondent, rather the petitioners sided with Mrs. Sudha Pai and subjected the respondent to brutal torture inside the police station, and certainly, this physical torture on the respondent does not fall within the ambit of their official function. They cannot take shelter under sec. 197 of Cr.P.C and sec. 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, and obtaining of sanctio