Supervisory police officer entitled to Section 197 CrPC protection for alleged illegal detention and torture during inquest if reasonable nexus to official duties exists, requiring prior sanction before prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

M A CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Sections 561-A of J&K CrPC (akin to Section 482 CrPC and 528 BNSS) seeks quashing of order dated 11.05.2015 passed by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu (hereinafter call ‘trial court’), in Complaint No.92-A/complaint t ilted ‘Satish Kumar V/S Kulbir Singh & Ors’, whereby the court has held that the petitioner was not entitled to protection under Section 197 CrPC and also seeks the quashing of the complaint.

2. The petitioner pleads that in the month of May 2005, he was posted as SDPO, R S Pura and on 09.05.2005, one Indu Rani W/O Kulwant Singh R/O Krishna Nagar Miran Sahib was found having died under mysterious circumstances in her bedroom, as reported by her brother-in-law Rameshwar Singh Manhas and that on this report, inquest proceedings under Section 174 CrPC were initiated at P/S Miran Sahib; that during inquiry, respondent No.2- Satish Kumar (hereinafter ‘complainant’) was called in police station on 10.05.2005 for interrogating him regarding the cause of death and was let free after two hours; that the police after making proper inquiry registered a case vide FIR No. 17/2005 under Sections 302 RPC & 4/25 Arms Act at P/S Miran Sahib against Kulwant Singh Manhas and Rameshwar Singh Manhas, sons of Vishwanath Manhas R/O Krishna Nagar Murjalian on 16.07.2005 which concluded into a chargesheet which was produced in the court of law and both the accused were convicted by the trial court, where conviction was upheld by the High Court.

3. The petitioner has alleged that in order to harass him and other police officials connected with the investigation of the case and supervising the same, a petition titled ‘Lajwanti Manhas V/S State & Ors,’ (HCP No.15/2005) was filed before the High Court and the High Court had appointed Deputy Registrar (Judicial) as a Warrant Officer to visit P/S Miran Sahib to find out actual position whether the person named in the petition including the complainant are under custody of police at P/S Miran Sahib and if so, they be released forthwith and in case someone is not there, the warrant officer was permitted to make enquiry about the whereabouts of the persons and report the matter; that the warrant officer visited P/S Miran Sahib and in his report submitted that Kulwant S ingh Manhas and Vishwanath Manhas were not in custody but they were in two different rooms and were set free and that the complainant was not found in p olice custody nor any information was given about his whereabouts and ultimately, the petition was withdrawn by petitioner – Lajwanti; that when complainant and his family could not succeed in pressurizing the police in investigation represented to the Human Rights Commission who after considering the reply of the petitioners dropped the proceedings; that the role of the petitioner as Incharge SDPO was of a supervisory nature as the investigation was conducted by concerned SHO.

4. The petitioner, further, pleads that the complainant had filed a criminal complaint all those issues raised earlier by the complainant and his family members before the IGP and State Human Rights Commission who had exonerated the petitioner and respondent nos. 3 to 5; that the trial court had lost sight of the fact and the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that pro