THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Indranil Barua, S/o. Madhab Ch. Barua – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, rep. by PP, Assam And Anr. – Respondents
Crl. Pet. No.1095 Of 2018
Decided On : 23-06-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482, 200, 202, 197, (3) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120(B), 166, 294, 352, 354, 357, 509, 34, 447, 506 - Discharge of official duty - Register a false case - Assaulted and pushed forcefully into a police vehicle - Vide impugned order learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offences against petitioner, along with three other accused persons and issued process to him to appear before Court and to stand trial – Petitioner was on duty at relevant point of time and whatsoever he had done, same appears to be done in discharge of his official duty - Para 13.
Finding of the Court:
Cognizance of offence was taken ignoring express legal bar, engrafted in section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, against petitioner, on such count it is abuse of process of court, there is requirement of exercising extraordinary or inherent powers of this court to quash impugned order of taking cognizance against petitioner, to prevent such abuse of process of court – Court find that ratio, laid down in cases, has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts and as such it would not advance case of respondent No.2 anymore - As no sanction has been obtained from competent authority, before taking cognizance by learned court below, impugned order so passed, has failed to withstand test of correctness and as such, same requires interference of court.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel, being assisted by Mr. H. Nath, for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. In this petition, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., petitioner, Shri Indranil Baruah has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order, dated 28.04.2016, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri in C.R. Case No.263/2016. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 28.04.2016, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri took cognizance of the offences under sections 120(B)/166/294/352/ 354/357/509/34 of the IPC, against the present petitioner, along with three other accused persons and issued process to him to appear before the Court and to stand trial.
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are adumbrated as under:-
Upon the said complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri registered a case being CR Case No.263/2016, and made over the same to the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri, vide order dated 20.01.2016. Then the learned Court below, on the basis of the statement of the complainant and another witnesses, recorded under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. took cognizance of the offences against the present petitioner and four others, under Sections 120(B)/166/ 294/352/354/357/509/34 IPC, and issued summons to them vide order dated 28.04.2016, and directed them to appear befo
S. Moitra vs. State of West Bengal
Indra Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and Another
Inspector of Police & Anr. vs. Battenapatla Vankataratnam & Anr.
Rajib Ranjan & Ors. vs. R. Vijaykumar
Devinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab through CBI
The judgment establishes the requirement of prosecution sanction and the protection under section 197 of Cr.P.C. for public servants discharging official duty.
The court emphasized that the requirement for sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is a matter to be determined at trial, and inherent powers under Section 482 cannot quash proceedings based solely ....
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 court emphasized that the necessity for prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. must be evaluated in the context of the trial, and allegations of misconduct by public servants do not automatical....
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.
The court establishes that the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not required when the offence committed by a public servant is not in the discharge of official duty.
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.