Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. ILANGOVAN, J.
Arockiya Doss - Petitioner
Versus
P. Muruganantham - Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 3244 of 2019 & Crl.MP(MD) No. 1804 of 2019
Decided On : 05-07-2022
Criminal Intimidation - Quarrel between Advocates and Police Officials - Section 197 Cr.P.C, Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1956 - PSO63 - The court discussed the requirement of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C for prosecuting a police officer, the interpretation of PSO63, and the applicability of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1956. The court found that the petitioner, being an Inspector of Police, did not require sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. The court also highlighted the exaggerated nature of the complaint and the mala fide exercise on the part of the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner, an Inspector of Police, alleging criminal intimidation and abuse. The petitioner sought quashment of the proceedings citing the requirement of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not require sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C and that the complaint was highly exaggerated, indicating mala fide exercise on the part of the respondent.
Issues: Requirement of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C, Exaggeration and mala fide exercise in the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C does not apply to an Inspector of Police. Exaggerated and mala fide complaints can lead to quashment of proceedings.
Final Decision: The criminal original petition is allowed, and the impugned case is quashed against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in CC No.441 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Trichy and quash the same.)
This criminal original petition is filed seeking quashment of the case in CC No. 441 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Trichy.
2. The facts in brief:-
The respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner and others with the following allegations:- On 02/12/2018 at about 9.30 pm, he was informed by Muneeswaran that his friend namely Madhanraj was detained in the Palakkarai police station. He went to the police station. At that time, he was abused by the accused persons stating that how he can make a complaint before the National Human Rights Commission. He was also criminally intimidated and also threatened. It was informed to his friends, who were Advocates and they came to the police station and rescued him. He lodged a complaint. Upon which, no action was taken. So the present private complaint has been filed.
3. This petitioner, who is arrayed as sole accused filed this petition seeking quashment of the entire proceedings on the ground that the occurrence said to have taken place, while he was discharging his official duty. Apart from that, he is also raised some factual issues.
4. Heard both sides.
5. It is a case of quarrel between the Advocates and the police officials. It is seen that the occurrence said to have taken place, when the respondent went to the police station, where the petitioner was working as Inspector of Police during the relevant time and made enquiry with regard to the detention of one Madhanraj. How the above said Madhanraj was related to him is not clear on record. It has been simply stated that he was a friend. When he wanted to interact with the above said Madhanraj, he was prevented by the police. According to him, he was also abused and criminally intimated etc. It is seen that against the said Madhanraj, a case was registered in Crime No.767 of 2018 for the offences under sections 448, 323, 392 and 506(ii) IPC r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act.
6. The respondent, who is a practising Advocate was not permitted to interact with the above said person Madhanraj. I am unable to understand the duty, which was cast upon the respondent to visit the police station and interact with the person, against whom a robbery case has been alleged. When the accused was in custody, it appears that the respondent tried to interact and meet the above said person and at that time, trouble has arisen between himself and the petitioner, who was working as Inspector of Police during the relevant time.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, section 197 Cr.P.C comes into rescue of the petitioner and without obtaining prior sanction, no private complaint can be initiated and continued. For that purpose, he would rely upon several judgments, such as in the case of Kannan Vs. S.M. Noor Mohammed (CDJ 2018 MHC 7572) and D. Devaraj Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain (Criminal Appeal No.458 of 2020, dated 18/06/2020). He would further submit that as per the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1956, the Director General of Police, Inspector General of Police and DIG are empowered to suspend and retain any officer of the subordinate police. So according to him, the competent authority for giving sanction to prosecute this petitioner is the District Superintendent of Police and so, sanction ought to have obtained from the competent authority before initiating or continuing the criminal prosecution. But the petitioner was only the Inspector of Police and he is not removable from his office by the order of the Government. So, sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C is not required. This is also evident from the Police Standing Order.
8. Section 63 of the Police Standing Order, reads as under:-
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
