Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
Dhanpati @ Dhanwanti – Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. – Respondent
Crl.M.C. 2330 of 2017 with CRL.M.C. 2352 of 2017 & Crl.M.A.Nos. 20235 of 2022 & 26924 of 2022 & Crl.M.C. 2353 of 2017 & Crl.M.A. 20487 of 2022
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 197 and 156(3) - Revision petitions - The learned Special Judge set aside the summoning order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, finding it unsustainable in law due to lack of prima facie evidence and absence of necessary sanction under Section 197 - The allegations against the respondents were deemed insufficient to establish the ingredients of the offences charged. (Paras 19, 20, 31)
(B) Public Servants - Protection under Section 197 - The court held that public servants cannot be prosecuted for actions taken in discharge of official duties without prior sanction, which was not obtained in this case. (Paras 31, 34)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged wrongful restraint and conspiracy involving police officials and a doctor to declare her insane, following a complaint of molestation. The learned MM summoned the accused, which was challenged in revision petitions.
Findings of Court:
The learned Special Judge found no prima facie case against the respondents and noted the absence of necessary sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
Issues: The main issues were whether the summoning order was justified and if the necessary legal requirements were met for prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the summoning order lacked legal basis due to insufficient evidence and the absence of sanction under Section 197, emphasizing the protection afforded to public servants acting in official capacity.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioner Dhanpati @ Dhanwanti under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated 24.04.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-06, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, whereby three separate Revisions Petitions filed by Sushil Kumar, Rajender Singh and Dr. Kiran Jakhar were allowed and the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’ for short), Patiala House Court dated 04.07.2016 summoning the accused persons was held to be unsustainable in law and accordingly set aside.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petitions are that the petitioner/complainant namely Dhanpati @ Dhanwanti filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that on 09.12.2024, she was wrongly restrained, molested and threatened by one O.P. Sharma (respondent no.3 in the application) and one unknown person (respondent no.4 in the application) at Patiala House Court, New Delhi. The complainant called the PCR and ASI Diwan Singh (respondent no.5 in the application) came to the spot, but he did not record her statement. The complainant submitted her typed complaint at PS-Tilak Marg, New Delhi. She was asked to sit in the police station and was told by SHO Sushil Kumar that a case would be registered only after her medical examination. The complainant was not willing to get herself medically examined as there was no apparent injury.But SHO Sushil Kumar ordered ASI Diwan Singh to take the complainant to the hospital. The complainant was thus, taken to RML Hospital, where ASI Diwan Singh had a discussion with the Doctor and told him wrong facts to the effect that the complainant is misbehaving and has become insane. It is further the case of the complainant that she was administered an injection and felt drowsy and was brought back to PS-Tilak Marg. Thereafter, SHO Sushil Kumar asked ASI Diwan Singh and other police officials to take the complainant to a mental hospital at Shahdara, Delhi. The complainant then contacted her lawyer and meanwhile found that SHO Sushil Kumar was talking to Rajender Singh, retired ACP on his mobile phone and saying “Sab Kaam Thik Ho Raha Hai Ap Chinta Mat Karo”. The complainant somehow came out of the police station and went home. Next day, the complainant tried to get her case registered. The SHO Sushil Kumar said that it will be registered in 2-3 days and refused to provide her copy of her MLC. The complainant then approached Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and got MLC number and then she came to know that she was referred to mental hospital at Shahdara, New Delhi.
3. According to the case of the complainant, ASI Diwan Singh, SHO Sushil Kumar, Rajender Singh and Dr. Kiran Jakhar had conspired to get her admitted in a mental hospital in order to get her declared insane. It is further the case of the complainant that there is a previously registered FIR against Rajender Singh under Section 376/509 IPC and a conspiracy to admit the petitioner in a mental hospital was hatched in order to get the benefit of her alleged insanity for exoneration of Rajender Singh in the said case.
4. In pre-summoning evidence, the complainant examined herself as PW-1. She proved her complaint as Ex.PW1/A, a copy of the report given to police on 09.12.2014 as Ex.PW1/1/B. The record of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital was proved by CW-2 Raj Kumar.
5. Learned MM vide her order dated 04.07.2016 took cognizance of the offences and summoned SHO Sushil Kumar, ASI Diwan Singh and Rajender Singh for the following offences punishable under Sections 166A/167/193/201/203/352/464/506/ 120B IPC. Whereas, Dr. Kiran Jakhar was summoned for offences punishable under Sections 166-A/167/193/201/203/464/120B IPC.
6. The summoned accused namely, SHO Sushil Kumar, Rajender Singh and Dr. Kiran Jakhar filed separate Revision Petitions being CR. No. 8830/2016, CR. No. 8969/2016 and CR. No. 8902/2016, respectively before the Special Judge (PC
Public servants cannot be prosecuted for actions taken in discharge of official duties without prior sanction, as established under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC is crucial for prosecuting public servants for acts done in the discharge of their official duties, to protect them from malicious and ....
The protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not available to public servants who commit offenses that are not connected with the discharge of their official duties or who act in excess of their autho....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for public servants and the power to quash proceedings if ex facie bad for want of sanction, ....
Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is essential for prosecuting public servants; proceedings lacking it are invalid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Special Court had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences and summon the petitioner without a committal order by the Magistrat....
Police actions in raiding history-sheeter's house for arrest in cognizable case have reasonable nexus to official duties, requiring prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC for prosecution of protected ....
At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defense version or evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant.
Police actions in raiding history-sheeter's house for arrest, including restraint of son, have reasonable nexus to official duties, attracting Section 197 CrPC protection requiring prior sanction for....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
