Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 960
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Rajesh Mathur
Vs
State of Rajasthan
S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1215 of 2011
Decided on : 13/09/2012
A SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF SECTION 197, CR. P. C. AS HE IS NOT A PUBLIC SERVANT REMOVABLE FROM OFFICE SAVE WITH OR BY THE SANCTION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT.
Headnote:
SECTION 197, CR. P. C. - PUBLIC SERVANT - SECTION 4(C), MYSORE POLICE ACT, 1908 - SECTION 8, MYSORE POLICE ACT, 1908 - SECTION 26(1), MYSORE POLICE ACT, 1908 - SECTION 26(3), MYSORE POLICE ACT, 1908 - A SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF SECTION 197, CR. P. C. AS HE IS NOT REMOVABLE FROM OFFICE SAVE WITH OR BY THE SANCTION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT.
Fact of the Case:
THE PETITIONER, A SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WAS SUMMONED FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 166, 175, AND 217, IPC, FOR HIS INACTION IN REGISTERING A COMPLAINT AND SUBMITTING A REPORT REGARDING THE FATE OF THE COMPLAINT SENT TO THE POLICE STATION FROM THE COURT. THE PETITIONER FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 197, CR. P. C., CLAIMING PROTECTION FROM PROSECUTION WITHOUT PRIOR SANCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT, AS HE WAS ACTING IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF SECTION 197, CR. P. C. AS HE WAS NOT A PUBLIC SERVANT REMOVABLE FROM OFFICE SAVE WITH OR BY THE SANCTION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE COURT DISTINGUISHED THE CASES CITED BY THE PETITIONER, WHICH INVOLVED MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER, FROM THE INSTANT CASE, WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE SUCH DUTIES.
Issues: WHETHER A SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE IS ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF SECTION 197, CR. P. C.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN NAGRAJ V. STATE OF MYSORE, WHICH HELD THAT A SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE IS NOT AN OFFICER REMOVABLE BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THUS, NO SANCTION UNDER SECTION 197, CR. P. C. IS REQUIRED TO PROSECUTE A SUB-INSPECTOR.
Final Decision: THE COURT REJECTED THE PETITIONER'S REVISION PETITION AND DISMISSED THE STAY PETITION.
Heard.
2. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 11-7-2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No. 85/1996 whereby his application under Section 197, Cr. P. C. has been rejected.
3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur filed a complaint on 15-4-1996 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara under Section 195, Cr. P.C. read with Section 340, Cr. P.C. with the allegation that a complaint had been sent for investigation to P. S. Gangapur under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. from the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur in relation to the offences under Section 420, 380, 381, 407, 411 and 120B, IPC but the same was not returned back after investigation. The complaint filed under the directions of the A. C. J. M. was lodged with the allegations that the concerned police officer-in-charge, Police Station, Gangapur, neither registered the case nor did he submit a report regarding the fate of the complaint sent to the police station from the Court and thus, the officer incharge was liable to be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 166, 175 and 217, IPC. It was also mentioned in the complaint that another complaint for the offences under Sections 417, 448, 427 and 504, IPC also met with the same fate alike the complaint referred to above.
4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate acting upon the complaint filed, took cognizance and summoned the petitioner, who was the Sub-Inspector & Incharge, P. S. Gangapur, at the relevant time for the offences under Sections 166, 175, and 217, IPC. The petitioner upon appearing before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, submitted an application under Section 197, Cr. P. C. stating therein that he was a police officer and as such, the inaction in registration of the complaint was actually an act covered under the discharge of the official duty and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to benefit of protection of Section 197, Cr. P. C. inasmuch as, no cognizance could be taken against him without prior sanction of the Government. The said application was rejected by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the order impugned. Hence, the instant Misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings of the complaint.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case, the petitioner was the incharge of the P. S., Gangapur at the relevant time and, therefore, his prosecution in relation to the acts done or omitted to be done in the discharge of the official duties was not permissible without procuring sanction as per Section 197, Cr. P.C. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of (1) Rajesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2006) 1 SCC 557 : (AIR 2006 SC 820) (2) Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das & Anr. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 584 (AIR 2006 SC 1599) and (3) Lalu Prasad alias Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar through CBI (AHD), Patna. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 49 : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1873) and the decisions of this Court rendered in the cases of (1) Chhagan Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2007 (2) Cr LR (Raj) 1582 and (2) Karamat v. State & Govind Detha. reported in 2007 (2) Cr LR (Raj) 1672.
6. Learned PP has vehemently opposed the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner.
7. Upon having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the material available on the record, it is apparent that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at the P. S. Gangapur. Admittedly, the Sub-Inspector of the police is not a public servant removable from his service by or save with the permission of the State Government. For the purpose of claiming the benefit of Section 197, Cr. P. C., the public servant concerned should be holding such a rank that he is not removable from service s
