IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, J.
DILIPKUMAR DANABHAI RATHOD - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8508 of 2021
Decided On : 07-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 & 227 and 356 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323,325, 331, 348, 342, 504, 506(2), 34, & 114 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 197 and 202 - Government of India Act, 1935 - Section 270 - Karnataka Police Act - Section 170 - P.C. Act - Section 19 (1) – Criminal Intimidation – Unlawful Assembly – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt - Complaint is on respondent was on his way towards his home, riding upon his motorbike - When he reached near noticed that petitioners were harassing street vendors and hawkers nearby area - Petitioners were in civil dress and victim injured did not realize that they are police constables - On seeing harassment, injured requested petitioners not to harass poor persons - Request made by the injured was turned down by petitioners and they got angry and abused him in filthy language and was dragged where he was beaten by petitioners. - petitioners were armed with sticks and caused grievous injury on his left ankle, at both foot and over his lower lip – Held, Petitioners that order does not reflect application of mind by trial Court and no reasons exist to direct police agency to investigate case as sufficient evidence being produced by complainant before the trial Court so as to take decision whether case is made out for issuance of process or not - Examination of witnesses, and seizure of Sweapons assistance of police agency is needed to investigate into matter – Trial Court has also taken into consideration affidavit filed by respondent no.2 in support of his complaint - Court is of the considered view that before passing the order - Clearly shows that powers have been duly and legally exercised by learned Magistrate impugned orders do not suffer from legal infirmity - Court does not find any merit in the petition to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code in quashing impugned orders – Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of Rule for the respondent State and Mr.Gohil, learned counsel waives service of Rule for the respondent No.2.
2. With consent of learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the issue involved in the petition, present petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. By way of this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 21.08.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.243/2021 by learned 11th Sessions Judge, Surat as well as the impugned order dated 04.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. ApplicationNo.672/2021 below Exh:1 by learned 10th Additional Chief-Judicial Magistrate, Surat, whereby, the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, referred to Assistant Commissioner of Police, Surat, for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘the Code’ for short).
4. Question of law sought to be raised in this petition is as to whether an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) can be passed in relation to “public servant” in the absence of valid sanction as contemplated under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.
5. The respondent no. 2 filed a private complaint against petitioners, who are police personnel serving as constables, under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323,325, 331, 348, 342, 504, 506(2), 34, & 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. Upon receipt of the complaint, the 10th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, directed the police agency to register an FIR and inquire into the matter in exercise of powers conferred under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C..
6. Brief facts of the complaint is that, on 16.07.2021 at about 7:30 pm, son of the respondent no. 2 - namely Mr. Nardipsinh Shelubhai Gohil was on his way towards his home, riding upon his motorbike. When he reached near Nana Varachha Police Chowki, Surat, he noticed that the petitioners were harassing the street vendors and hawkers nearby the area. The petitioners were in civil dress and the victim injured did not realize that they are police constables. On seeing the harassment, the injured Nardipsinh requested the petitioners not to harass the poor persons. The request made by the injured was turned down by the petitioners and they got angry and abused him in filthy language and was dragged to Nana Varachha Police Chowki, where he was beaten by petitioners. The petitioners were armed with sticks and caused the grievous injury on his left ankle, at both the foot and over his lower lip.
Thereafter, injured had called his father – respondent No.2 by his mobile. Respondent No.2 reached at the police station. The injured was taken to Sanjeevani Hospital, Surat, where he was admitted and treated for the bodily injuries. Seven stitches were taken for the lip injury. There was swelling and redness over abdomen and at both the legs.
On the next day i.e. on 17.07.2021, respondent No.2submitted a written complaint to Kapodara Police Station for the alleged misuse of power, torture and alleged illegal act of the petitioners, however, the complaint was not registered, nor any action was taken by the authority. It is alleged that, the petitioners pressurizing the respondent No.2 for compromise and also given threats that they being police officers, no one can take action against them. The respondent No.2 had also submitted a complaint to Assistant Police Commissioner, Surat for the alleged illegal act committed by the petitioners. Thereafter, on 19.07.2021 and 21.07.2021, he had been called by P.I., Kapodara Police Station, Surat and Police Commissioner for meeting and lastly on 24.07.2021, he was called by DCP, Zone-I, Surat. It is alleged that the authority concerned did not register the
L.Narayanswamy Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2016) 9 SCC 598
Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Gujarat
Baijnath Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
D. Devraja Vs. Owais Sabbir Hussain
Sambhoo Nath Mishra Vs. State of U.P. (1997) 5 SCC 326
Parkash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1
Rajib Ranjan Vs. R. Vijay Kumar (2015) 1 SCC 513
P.K.Pradhan Vs. State of Sikkim represented by Central Bureau of Investigation (2001) 6 SCC 704
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act mandatory before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or registering FIR against public servant for official duty acts; absenc....
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act mandatory before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or registering FIR against public servant for offences in discharge of o....
Point of Law : High Court was absolutely right in setting aside the order of the Special Judge. Unlike Section 19 of the PC Act, the protection under Section 197 CrPC is available to the public serva....
Sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory for prosecuting public servants for actions taken while performing official duties, preventing misuse of legal proceedings.
Bare perusal of Section 17A of P.C. Act would indicate bar for enquiry, inquiry or investigation into an offence under the P.C. Act is on the Police Officer.
Protection under Section 197 Cr.PC is essential for public servants to prevent frivolous prosecutions arising from actions taken in the course of official duties.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.