Prior sanction under BNSS Section 218 mandatory for prosecuting police when alleged excesses during raid to arrest criminals reasonably connected to official duty; cognizance without sanction quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P.K. Shahi, the learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Shivendra Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Dhirendar Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel, assisted by Mr. Amrit Lal and Ms. Vaishnavi Kashyap, the learned counsels for the complainant/opposite party No. 2. The State has been represented by Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, invoking inherent jurisdiction, has been preferred seeking quashing of the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arwal in connection with Complaint Case No. 336 (C) of 2024, whereby the Court has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 74 , 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) 352, 333, 331(3), 331(4), 331(5), 331(6) and 330/190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the B.N.S.)

3. The factual matrix giving rise to the present application is that one Tanisha Singh, the complainant/opposite party No. 2, made a complaint, bearing Complaint Case No. 336(C) of 2024, in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arwal on 02.12.2024, alleging that all the accused persons including the petitioners broke down the front and back gate and entered into the house, assaulted the female members present in the house and behaved indecently. It is alleged that the Deputy Superintendent of Police was giving directions to the accused persons from some other place, which was beyond the coverage of the CCTV. It is further alleged that the named accused persons including the petitioners assaulted the eighty years old grandmother-in-law of the complainant/opposite party No. 2, while a few named police personnel assaulted her mother-in-law and one Raghav Kumar Jha (petitioner No. 3) attempted to outrage the modesty of the mother-in-law of the complainant/opposite party No. 2. It is also alleged that the accused persons, on the pretext of search, asked for the keys of the Almirah and even took away the jewellery kept in it. It has been alleged in the complaint that the accused persons damaged the house hold articles of the complainant/opposite party No. 2, causing loss of several lacs. It has further been alleged that the accused persons, who are about hundred in number, came in fifteen vehicles, out of whom some were in civil dress and were holding arms. It has next been alleged that the accused/Raghav Kumar Jha (petitioner No. 3) assaulted the relative of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 with the butt of the pistol and took him also in their company. It has lastly been stated that the matter was not reported to the police as the complainant/opposite party No. 2 thought that she would not get justice from the police.

4. On such complaint made by the complainant/opposite party No. 2, the learned Magistrate held an enquiry and took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 74 , 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) 352, 333, 331(3), 331(4), 331(5), 331(6) and 330/190 of the B.N.S. vide order dated 07.05.2025, which order has been impugned in the present petition.

5. Mr. P.K. Shahi, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the order taking cognizance is palpably illegal as the petitioners were the police personnel, who had gone to the house of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 in se