The court held that the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is required for the investigation against police officials. It also found a violation of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case. Therefore, the court quashed the complaint and FIR as an abuse of process of law.

ORDER :

Crl.P.No.9349/2022 filed by petitioner/accused No.4 and other four petitions Crl.P.Nos.9354/2022, 9312/2022, 9365/2022 and 9486/2022 are filed by accused Nos.8 to 11 respectively under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the PCR.No.57/2022 and to quash the FIR in Crime No.73/2022 registered by the Channapatna East Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 211, 220, 417, 420 506 342, 347, 348 read with Section 34 of IPC pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna, Ramanagara District.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner in all 5 cases, learned HCGP for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2/defacto complainant.

3. The case of the petitioners are that respondent No.2 defacto-complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the same is registered as PCR No.57/2022 and got it referred to the police station for the investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., in turn the Channapatna East Police registered FIR against the petitioners and others for the offence punishable as per the aforementioned Sections. It is alleged by the defacto-complainant that on 04.11.2020 the petitioner/accused No.4 being Police Sub-Inspector and accused Nos.8 to 11 are the Police Constables working in Channapatna Police Station apprehended the defacto complainant at Bangalore. They said to have been snatched the mobile phone, laptop and taken him to the police station in respect of Crime No.102/2020 and they have produced before the Magistrate. In turn, he was remanded to judicial custody, subsequently he was released on bail. Thereafter, the private complaint filed by the complainant before the Magistrate, it is alleged that accused Nos.3 to 5 along with these defacto complainant are founder of Meditrix, a predictive and preventive health care analytics company in Andhra Pradesh. There was some inter se quarrel between the partners and accused No.5 has filed complaint to the police and in pursuance of the said complaint, the present petitioner apprehended the defacto complainant and they harassed and manhandled him, they destroyed the programmes in the laptop and obtained the signature on the blank papers in the police station. They have manipulated various documents at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3 and accused No.5. The dispute between the complainant and his partners were civil dispute, where the police registered a false case and seized the articles, thereby accused Nos.1 to 3 and accused No.5 in collusion with these petitioners filed a false case against him. After registering of the complaint, the complaint has been referred to police station under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in turn FIR has been registered against the petitioner for police officials and others which is under challenge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner appearing for petitioners strenuously contended and challenged FIR and complaint mainly on the grounds, that the petitioners are police officials who have acted as per the law, they apprehended the complainant in criminal case registered against respondent No.2 in Crime No.102/2020 and they have discharged official duty, where the respondent No.2 prevented the police officials from discharging their official duty, therefore one more case has been registered against respondent No.2 in Crime No.103/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC and in order to overcome those cases, a false complaint has been filed against petitioners.

5. The learned counsel further contended the petitioners are police officials, they said to be done the offence while discharging the official duty, therefore a protection is available under Section 197 of Cr.P.C and a sanction is required to prosecute a case against them. The complainant not taken any sanction from the complainant authority, therefore the complaint as well as FIR is not sustainable and liable to be quashed.

6. The learned counsel further contended that ther