J. B. S. Chandel vs State of M. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
J.B.S. Chandel v. State of M. P. & Another
Miscellaneous Criminal Cases No. 14484 of 2012, 4368 of 2013 and 34749 of 2019 (Jabalpur); Decided on 14.1.2022

Advocates:
Manish Datt with Sameer Agrawal for applicants; Devendra Gangrade, Panel Lawyer for respondent No. 1/State; R.P. Mishra for respondent No. 2.

Headnote:
(1) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S.197-- sanction for prosecution -- Court is precluded from entertaining complaint or taking notice of it or exercising jurisdiction if it is in respect of public servant who is accused of offence alleged to have been committed during discharge of official duty -- previous sanction is mandatory requirement for cognizance by Magistrate -- even when alleged offence is in excess of power of public servant or is illegal, umbrella provided u/s. 197 is available -- only necessity is to see nexus between alleged offence and fact that same has be encommitted in discharge of official duties by accused (public servant). (2001) 6 SCC 704, (2000) 5 SCC 15, (2000) 8 SCC 500, (2005) 4 SCC 512, (2001) 5 SCC 7, D.T. (2015) 12 SCC 231, (2016) 6 SCC 734, (2005) 8 SCC 202, (1997) 10 SCC 772, (1998) 1 SCC 205 and (1998) 5 SCC 91 followed. (1997) 5 SCC 326, (1998) 5 SCC 690, Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2003 and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 10880 of 2021 referred to. [Paras 16, 19 and 25]
(2) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S.197 -- sanction for prosecution -- petitioners public servants working in police department -- deceased convicted accused released on parole -- did not surrender and declared absconder -- police tried to arrest him -- fight between police team and accused party -- deceased succumbed to injuries -- held -- petitioners are public servants discharging their official duties making endeavours to arrest accused (deceased) -- required nexusfully established -- compliance of S. 197 was mandatory requirement for cognizance by Magistrate on complaint -- protection of S. 197 can be provided to petitioners. (2001) 6 SCC 704, (2000) 5 SCC 15, (2000) 8 SCC 500, (2005) 4 SCC 512, (2001) 5 SCC 7, D.T. (2015) 12 SCC 231, (2016) 6 SCC 734, (2005) 8 SCC 202, (1997) 10 SCC 772, (1998) 1 SCC 205 and (1998) 5 SCC 91 followed. AIR 2009 SC 1404, AIR 2009 SC 2015 and AIR 2008 SC 1375 distinguished. (1997) 5 SCC 326, (1998) 5 SCC 690, Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2003 and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 10880 of 2021 referred to. [Paras 26 and 29]
(3) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 197-- sanction for prosecution -- object - to save officials from vexatious proceedings -- to protect public servants from needless harassment so that they may perform public duty honestly and to best of their abilities -- threat of prosecution demoralises honest officer. [Para 26]
¼1½ naM ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 197 & vfHk;kstu dh eatwjh & ifjokn ,sls yksd lsod ls lacaf/kr gS tks vfHkdfFkr :i ls inh; drZO; ds fuoZgu ds nkSjku fd, tkus okys vijk/k dk vfHk;qDr gS] rks U;k;ky; ifjokn xzg.k djus vFkok mldh vis{kk djus vFkok vf/kdkfjrk Á;qDr djus ls Áokfjr & eftLVªsV }kjk laKku ds fy, iwoZ eatwjh vkKkid vis{kk gS & vfHkdfFkr vijkèk yksd lsod dh 'kfDr ds vfrjsd esa gks ;k voS/k gks] rc Hkh /kkjk 197 ds v/khu micaf/kr N=Nk;k miyC/k & ,dek= vko';drk vfHkdfFkr vijk/k vkSj bl rF; ds e/; varlca/k ns[kus dh gS fd og vfHk;qDr ¼yksd lsod½ }kjk inh; drZO;ksa ds fuoZgu esa fd;k x;k gSA ¼2001½ 6 ,l lh lh 704] ¼2000½ 5 ,l lh lh 15] ¼2000½ 8 ,l lh lh 500] ¼2005½ 4 ,l lh lh 512] ¼2001½ 5 ,l lh lh 7] ¼2015½ 12 ,l lh lh 231] ¼2016½ 6 ,l lh lh 734] ¼2005½ 8 ,l lh lh 202] ¼1997½ 10 ,l lh lh 772] ¼1998½ 1 ,l lh lh 205 rFkk ¼1998½ 5 ,l lh lh 91 vuqlfjrA ¼1997½ 5 ,l lh lh 326] ¼1998½ 5 ,l lh lh 690] nkafMd vihy Øekad 190 lu~ 2003 rFkk Ádh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Øekad 10880 lu~ 2021 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 16] 19 ,oa 25½
¼2½ naM ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 197 & vfHk;kstu dh eatwjh & ;kphx.k iqfyl foHkkx esa dk;Zjr yksd lsod & e`rd iSjksy ij NksM+k x;k fl) nks"k vfHk;qDr & vH;iZ.k ugha fd;k rFkk Qjkj ?kksf"kr & iqfyl us mls fxjrkj djus dh ps"Vk dh & iqfyl ny rFkk vfHk;qDri{k ds e/; yM+kbZ gqbZ & {kfr;ksa ls e`rd dk nsgkar & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;kphx.k vfHk;qDr ¼e`rd½ dks fxjrkj djus ds Á;kl dj vius inh; drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu djus okys yksd lsod gSa & vko';d varlca/k iw.kZr% fl) & eftLVªsV }kjk ifjokn dk laKku fd, tkus ds fy, /kkjk 197 dk vuqikyu vkKkid vis{kk Fkk & ;kphx.k dks /kkjk 197 dk laj{k.k fn;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2001½ 6 ,l lh lh 704] ¼2000½ 5 ,l lh lh 15] ¼2000½ 8 ,l lh lh 500] ¼2005½ 4 ,l lh lh 512] ¼2001½ 5 ,l lh lh 7] ¼2015½ 12 ,l lh lh 231] ¼2016½ 6 ,l lh lh 734] ¼2005½ 8 ,l lh lh 202] ¼1997½ 10 ,l lh lh 772] ¼1998½ 1 ,l lh lh 205 rFkk ¼1998½ 5 ,l lh lh 91 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 2009 ,l lh 1404] , vkb vkj 2009 ,l lh lh 2015 rFkk , vkb vkj 2008 ,l lh lh 1375 ÁHksfnrA ¼1997½ 5 ,l lh lh 326] ¼1998½ 5 ,l lh lh 690] nkafMd vihy Øekad 190 lu~ 2003 rFkk Ádh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Øekad 10880 lu~ 2021 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 26 ,oa 29½
¼3½ naM ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 197 & vfHk;kstu dh eatwjh & mn~ns'; & in/kkfj;ksa dks rax djus okyh dk;Zokfg;ksa ls cpkuk & yksd lsodksa dks vuko';d mRihM+u ls lqj{kk nsuk rkfd og lR;fu"Bk ls vkSj iw.kZ ;ksX;rk ls yksd drZO; dk ikyu dj ldsa & vfHk;kstu dh vk'kadk ls fu"Bkoku vf/kdkjh dk eukscy fxjrk gSA ¼iSjk 26½

ORDER

1. Considering the facts and circumstances of these petitions and the issue involved in the same since interconnected with each other, therefore, all these petitions are heard and decided analogously by this common order. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the entire proceedings pending in the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol vide S.T. No.184/2012 and also for quashing the order dated 08.03.2013 passed by the said Court framing charges against the petitioners under sections 302, 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also order dated 8.11.2012 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol whereby the application filed by the petitioners under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected.

2. Laconic facts of the case are that respondent No.2 had filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol inter alia on the ground that her son Rajkumar @ Chhota Gudda was on the way to his sister’s house on 29.11.2006 along with his friend Bhupendra Sharma and when they were crossing the Mudna river, the petitioners along with other subordinate police personnel intercepted them and on the order of the petitioners, the police personnel shot fire upon Chhota Gudda, resultantly, he succumbed. As per the complainant/respondent No.2, to cover-up their wrongdoings, the petitioners and other police personnel converted the story by faking it as an encounter, but in fact they have murdered the son of respondent No.2/complainant.

(2.1) The complainant filed a complaint under section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying for initiation of appropriate proceedings against the petitioners and other accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 302, 120-B read with section 34 and 149 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.2) Thereafter, the statements of complainant/ respondent No.2 and other witnesses were recorded and after recording the statements, CJM, Shahdol dismissed the complaint vide order dated 4.3.2010 inter alia on the ground that the petitioners and other accused persons are government servants and their alleged conduct comes within the parameters of discharge of their official duties. The trial Court in its order has held that before filing the complaint, no sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. has been obtained by the complainant/respondent No.2, which is a mandatory requirement and in absence of valid sanction from the competent authority, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted.

(2.3) Against the order passed by the CJM, Shahdol, a criminal revision was filed before the Sessions Court, Shahdol and the Additional Sessions Judge by its order dated 17.5.2010 allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to the Court of CJM directing that the complainant be heard afresh and then appropriate order be passed. Thereafter, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 17.5.2010 was assailed by the petitioners by filing a revision before this Court which got dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2010.

(2.4) Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and the Magistrate vide order dated 20.1.2011 directed for registration of offence under sections 302/34 and 120-B of IPC against the petitioners. Hence, these petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 20.1.2011 and also seeking quashment of the proceedings.

(2.5) The complainant/respondent No.2 represented the matter to various authorities asking proper inquiry and on her representation, the matter was referred for Magisterial enquiry. The National Human Rights Commission has also conducted an inquiry at their own level, in which allegation of murder against the present petitioners was found incorrect and no substance was found in the complaint made by the complainant/respondent No.2 (mother of the deceased). In the inquiry conducted by the Magistrate, several witnesses were examined and after appreciating the statements and mate