2006 (3) TMI 748 - SC - Indian Laws

Petition filled u/s 482 of the Code for quashing of proceedings - No sanction obtained before filing the complaint - rioting between two rival political parties - Offences punishable under Sections 148 149 and 336 IPC read with Sections 3 5 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 against the deceased and others - During the incident of dispersing mob and preventing rioting the deceased was injured and fell into water drowned in the lake and declared dead - appellant as police officers exercising powers discharging duties and performing functions as police officer - Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the complainant and proceeding with the complaint - whether the case is covered by Section 210 of the Code and the private complaint filed by the complainant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on May 28 2001 against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 302 201 109 and 120B IPC could be proceeded with or required to be stayed? HELD THAT - In the instant case from the material which has been placed on record it is amply clear that the appellant and other police officers had acted illegally unlawfully and highhandedly. In the complaint it was stated by the widow of deceased Topi Das that the accused chased her husband and assaulted him by causing several injuries which resulted in his death. But apart from what is stated in the complaint the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had recorded statements of witnesses mentioned in the complaint. The learned counsel for the first respondent- complainant drew our attention to those statements who were eye-witnesses. It was stated by them that the deceased had not indulged in any illegal activity. He had not done any unlawful act. He had no weapon with him. He was distributing food packets at the polling booth of a particular political party. He was assaulted and beaten by accused persons who were police officers. When the deceased left the place the police officers chased him and continued to beat him. When deceased reached near a lake he requested the police officers not to beat him. He also stated that he did not know how to swim and prayed to leave him. But the police officers did not pay any heed to his request and continued beating which resulted in his death. The High Court in my judgment considered this aspect in its proper perspective and was wholly justified in observing that it was a merciless beating by a police officer causing death of a person which could not be said to be an act in discharge of official duty. The High Court was also right in stating that postmortem report clearly indicated the nature and extent of injuries on the victim. Other witnesses had given vivid description of the offence committed by the accused persons. The said finding which is supported by material on record cannot be said to be based on no evidence or otherwise perverse nor it can be concluded that an error of law has been committed by the High Court which requires to be corrected by this Court in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Hence in my opinion no interference is called for against the said order. It may also be stated here that the High Court in its order dated June 20 2003 considered this contention and observed that Section 210 of the Code could not arrest the proceedings initiated by the complainant since the basic tenor of the two cases were different. Relying on the decision of this Court in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1984 (12) TMI 332 - SUPREME COURT it was submitted that both the cases could not be clubbed together since the prosecution version was quite different in those cases. It may be stated that Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court was dismissed by this Court on July 28 2003. Even this ground therefore cannot take the case of the appellant anywhere. In my opinion the order passed by the High Court is in consonance with well settled principles of law and does not deserve interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding sanction for prosecution of public servants.
2. Applicability of Section 210 of the CrPC regarding the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):

Legal Position and Interpretation:
Section 197 of the CrPC provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty except with the previous sanction of the government. The section aims to protect public servants from vexatious prosecution for acts done in the discharge of their official duties.

The judgment discusses various precedents to elucidate the scope and application of Section 197:
- In *Dr. Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor*, it was held that the offence must have a reasonable connection with the discharge of official duty.
- In *H.H.B. Gill & another v. King*, the test formulated was whether the public servant, if challenged, could reasonably claim that what he did was in virtue of his office.
- In *Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari*, the Supreme Court held that there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty, and the necessity for sanction may reveal itself at any stage of the proceedings.
- In *Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar & Others*, the Court reiterated that the protection under Section 197 is available only when the alleged act is reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act.

Application to the Present Case:
The appellant, a police officer, argued that he was acting in the discharge of his official duties when the alleged offence occurred, and therefore, sanction under Section 197 was necessary. The High Court, however, observed that the act of "merciless beating" causing death could not be considered as an act done in the discharge of official duty. The postmortem report and witness statements indicated that the deceased was chased, assaulted, and beaten by the police officers, resulting in his death.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view, stating that the protection under Section 197 is not available when the act is illegal, unlawful, and has no reasonable connection with the official duty. The Court emphasized that it is the duty of the court to ensure that public servants are protected when acting in the discharge of their duties, but not when they misuse their position to commit unlawful acts.

2. Applicability of Section 210 of the CrPC:

Legal Position and Interpretation:
Section 210 of the CrPC deals with the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. The section requires the Magistrate to stay the proceedings of the complaint case and call for a report from the police officer conducting the investigation. If the police report is received and cognizance is taken, the Magistrate shall try both cases together.

Application to the Present Case:
The appellant contended that the complaint filed by the complainant should be stayed under Section 210 as there was an ongoing police investigation. However, the High Court noted that the basic tenor of the two cases was different, and the prosecution version in the police case was quite different from the complaint case. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's view, stating that Section 210 was not applicable as the conditions for its invocation were not satisfied. The Court also noted that the appellant's application for anticipatory bail had been rejected, and despite the non-bailable warrant, the appellant had not been arrested, indicating a partisan attitude by the State agency.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that Section 197 of the CrPC was not applicable as the act of the police officers was illegal and not connected with the discharge of official duty. The Court also held that Section 210 of the CrPC was not applicable as the conditions for its invocation were not met. The Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, to proceed with the case expeditiously. The observations made were limited to the applicability of Sections 197 and 210 and should not influence the merits of the case.