SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 7763

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M G UMA, J
SRI BRIJESH MATHEW, S/O SRI. K.J MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, CARLTON HOUSE, BENGALURU 560 001 | SRI MANJUNATH M, S/O SRI MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY MARKET | SRI RAMESH, S/O SRI SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE | SRI HUSENSAB BADIGAR, S/O SRI IMAMSAB, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS POLICE CONSTABLE | MR. SHASHIKUMARA C S, S/O SRI SHARANAPPA C M, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS POLICE CONSTABLE | SRI SRINIVASA Y H, S/O HONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS HEAD CONSTABLE | MR. NAVEEN KUMAR M, S/O SRI MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS POLICE CONSTABLE | SRI SHIVANANDA H MADALLI, S/O SRI HANUMANTHAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS HEAD CONSTABLE | SRI JAGADEESHA, S/O BASAVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS POLICE CONSTABLE – Appellant
Versus
SRI HARISHRAJ G B, S/O SRI GOPALA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O NO. 45/34, 16 TH CROSS, MALAGALA, NAGARBHAVI 2 ND STAGE, BENGALURU | STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001 – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7610 OF 2022



Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI BHARATH KUMAR V, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI GIRISH D S, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. K.P YASHODHA, HCGP

Public servants are protected under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code when acting within the scope of their official duties, and prosecution requires prior sanction if no malicious intent is proven.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Petitioners, police officers, sought to quash proceedings initiated against them for alleged assault during duty - Court found no prima facie evidence of police atrocities - Allegations unsupported by medical reports and prior judicial observations - Sanction under Section 197 required for prosecution of public servants in discharge of duty - Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 10, 25, 26)

(B) Public Servants - Protection under law - Actions of public servants in discharge of duty protected unless proven to exceed authority - No malicious intent found in actions of petitioners. (Paras 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
Respondent alleged assault by police officers during an incident involving traffic violations. Complainant recorded the incident, alleging police brutality. Medical examinations showed minor injuries, inconsistent with claims of severe assault.

Findings of Court:
No evidence of wrongdoing by police; actions taken within the scope of duty.

Issues: Whether the petitioners acted within their authority as public servants and whether prior sanction was necessary for prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: Court held that public servants are protected under Section 197 when acting within their official capacity; insufficient evidence to support the allegations against the petitioners.

Result: Petition allowed; FIR quashed.

Table of Content
1. allegations of police misconduct against complainant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. defense arguments regarding lack of evidence and required sanction. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. complainant's claims of police brutality and evidence presented. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. court's analysis on evidence and legal protections for public servants. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. criminal proceedings quashed due to lack of prima facie evidence. (Para 26)
6. final order quashing fir against the petitioners. (Para 27)

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 9 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in PCR.No.15334/2021 which is now pending in C.C.No.24006/2022 on the file of the learned VIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 166 , 167, 168, 177, 204, 323, 324, 330, 504, 506 of I.P.C and Section 30 of the ARMS ACT , 1959.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.1 as complainant filed PCR No.15334/2021 against the accused alleging commission of the offences as stated above. The allegations made by the complainant/respondent No.1 is that on 15.03.2021, at 6.30 p.m when he along with his friend Ashok Raj was passing near Adishwar Showroom, within Chandra Layout police station limits, three unknown persons came on a scooter with triple riding violating the traffic rules. Accused Nos.4 and 5 being the police constables tried to stop the scooter, but they tried to escape. At that time, accused No.4 assaulted the above persons and caused injuries. Inspite of that, riders managed to escape, but in their attempt to escape they fell down and sustained injuries. One of the persons suffered fracture of left leg. The complainant questioned the act of accused No.4 as to why he has assaulted the riders. Many public gathered at the spot. Immediately accused Nos.4 and 5 managed to get some more police personnel and 6-8 police constables came to the spot.

3. Accused No.5 started assaulting the general public and accused Nos.4 and 5 have dragged the complainant and one Ashok Raj by handcuffing them and taken them to the police station. The complainant recorded the entire episode on his mobile and taken photographs. It is stated that accused No.1 being the police inspector under the guise of enquiry, assaulted the complainant, man handled him by kicking all over his body with bootleg. He was made to sit on the floor only with undergarment.

4. Accused No.1 directed his subordinate - accused No.2 to teach the complainant a lesson. Accordingly, accused No.2 assaulted the complainant and his friend with lathis, bootlegs, fist and caused brutal injuries. Accused Nos.3 to 5 abused the complainant in filthy language and kicked on their back, legs, shoulders, stomach. When the complainant was unable to bear the pain, he started screaming for help. Accused No.2 pointed the complainant's head with a revolver as per the instructions of accused No.1 and threatened to kill him, thereby, intimidated to cause his death. Later, the complainant came to know that the revolver was empty and had no bullets in it. Accused No.2 fisted the complainant on his head, back and stomach, etc.

5. The accused have registered a false complaint on 15.03.2021 against the complainant and his friend and later produced them before the learned Magistrate. Within few days, a rowdy sheet was opened against the complainant without any reasons. When the complainant was remanded to custody as per the order of learned Magistrate and taken him to the Central Prison, Bengaluru, the complainant was subjected to medical examination by the Medical Officer and as per the medical report, he had sustained several injuries all over his body. Therefore, it is the contention of the complainant that the accused being the police officers crossed their limits and committed atrocities by assaulting the complainant and thereby committed the offences. Accordin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top