2004 (3) TMI 824 - SC - Indian Laws

Legality of the proceedings for acts of search, seizure and arrest were done in pursuant of their official duty and they cannot be proceeded against without necessary sanction - Applicability of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Abuse of the process of the court - HELD THAT -The mandatory character of the protection afforded to a public servant is brought out by the expression, 'no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction'. Use of the words, 'no' and 'shall' make it abundantly clear that the bar on the exercise of power by the court to take cognizance of any offence is absolute and complete. Very cognizance is barred. That is the complaint, cannot be taken notice of. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word 'cognizance' means 'jurisdiction' or 'the exercise of jurisdiction' or 'power to try and determine causes'. In common parlance it means taking notice of. A court, therefore, is precluded from entertaining a complaint or taking notice of it or exercising jurisdiction if it is in respect of a public servant who is accused of an offence alleged to have committed during discharge of his official duty. Applicability of Section 197 - The factual scenario as indicated above goes to show that on 28.2.1991 respondent was produced before the Magistrate. He was specifically asked as to whether there was any ill-treatment. Learned SDJM specifically records that no complaint of any ill-treatment was made. This itself strikes at the credibility of the complaint. Additionally, the doctor who has examined him stated that for the first time on 2.3.1991 he treated the complainant. Though there are several other aspects highlighted in the version indicated in the complaint and the materials on record are there, we do not think it necessary to go into them because of the inherent improbabilities of the complainant's case and the patent mala fides involved. It is no doubt true that the threshold interference by exercise of jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code has to be in very rare cases, and this case appears to be of that nature. It fits in with the category No. 7 of broad categories indicated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 (12) TMI 234 - SUPREME COURT . It is to be noted that though plea regarding non-complaint before the Magistrate was specifically taken to justify interference, the High Court has not dealt with this aspect at all thereby adding to the vulnerability thereof.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the proceedings instituted by the complainant.
2. Applicability of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Abuse of the process of the court.

Summary:

1. Legality of the proceedings instituted by the complainant:
The appellants, six officers of the Orissa State Forest Department, were accused by the respondent (complainant) of falsely implicating him for offences under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and committing offences punishable u/s 341, 323, 325, 506, and 386 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants argued that the complaint was a retaliatory measure following the seizure of ivory from the complainant, who could not justify its possession. The High Court initially allowed the appellants to make submissions before the SDJM, who ruled that no sanction u/s 197 of the Code was necessary.

2. Applicability of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The pivotal issue was whether Section 197 of the Code applied. The Supreme Court emphasized the balance between protecting public servants and citizens. The protection u/s 197 is to shield public servants from vexatious proceedings for acts done in the discharge of official duties. The Court noted that the protection is available only when the act is reasonably connected with official duty and not merely a cloak for objectionable acts. The Court cited precedents to clarify that the act must fall within the scope of official duties for Section 197 to apply.

3. Abuse of the process of the court:
The appellants contended that the complaint was an abuse of the court process. The Supreme Court noted that the respondent did not complain of ill-treatment when produced before the Magistrate, which undermined the credibility of his complaint. The Court found inherent improbabilities and patent mala fides in the complainant's case. It held that the case fit within the broad categories warranting interference u/s 482 of the Code, as outlined in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. The High Court's failure to address the non-complaint before the Magistrate added to the vulnerability of its judgment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment and the proceedings in ICC No. 45/91, stating that the continuance of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The appeal was allowed, and it was clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the cases against the respondent-complainant, which should be dealt with in accordance with law.