Shankarbhai Jivabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Shankarbhai Jivabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 9 September, 2025

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.RA/352/2021                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                         R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
                                     SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 352 of 2021

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
                      ==========================================================
                                   Approved for Reporting                       Yes           No

                      ==========================================================
                                                  SHANKARBHAI JIVABHAI PATEL
                                                            Versus
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR ADIL R MIRZA(2488) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
                      ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                                                           Date : 09/09/2025
                                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present Criminal Revision Application is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), challenging the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the learned 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampur, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 229 of 2020, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant herein was dismissed.

2. Brief facts leading to the present revision application are as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/352/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 2.1 The applicant, who claims to be a prominent public figure holding positions such as Vice President of Kaprada Taluka Panchayat, Director in Nanapondha Market Committee, and President of certain cooperative societies, filed a private complaint under Sections 143, 145, 147, 323, 325, 504, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), read with Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(1)(2)(a)(b), and 3(1)(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Act"), against the respondents Nos. 2 to 5, who are police officers attached to Nanapondha Police Station and other related posts.

2.2 According to the complaint, on 26.10.2020, during an election-related meeting at Nanapondha attended by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Gujarat, the applicant and his associates were allegedly stopped, abused, and assaulted by the respondents police officers while leaving the venue.

The applicant alleges that he was subjected to verbal abuse, physical assault with sticks leading to a fracture in his leg, and threats. He was subsequently taken to the police station, where proceedings under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. were initiated against him, and he was released on bail. The applicant claims to have sought medical treatment, confirming the fracture.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/352/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 2.3 The complaint was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 229 of 2020 before the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampur. After recording the verification of the complainant on 17.12.2020, the learned Judge dismissed the complaint vide order dated 05.01.2021, holding that the accused persons are public servants who were acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties during the incident, and no prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. had been obtained by the complainant, rendering the complaint not maintainable.

3. Mr. Adil R. Mirza, learned advocate for the applicant, submits that the impugned order is erroneous, bad in law, and without jurisdiction. He has submitted that the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. arises only at the stage of taking cognizance and not at the initiation of proceedings, and that such sanction can be obtained at any subsequent stage. He has further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have appreciated judicial pronouncements holding that sanction is not mandatory for the initial filing of the complaint. Additionally, he contends that the complaint should have been forwarded to the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction instead of being decided by the Sessions Judge himself. He emphasized that a preliminary inquiry should have been conducted to ascertain as to whether the accused were indeed acting in their official capacity or not. He points out that the applicant sustained serious injuries, including a Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:05:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/352/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined fracture, as evident by the medical certificate, which was not duly appreciated by the lower court. Thus, it is urged that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned APP for the respondent-State, submits that the impugned order is well-reasoned order passed in accordance with law. She has further submitted that the accused persons, being police officers on duty during a high-profile event involving the Hon'ble Chief Minister, were clearly acting in the discharge of their official duties to maintain law and order and to prevent any breach of peace. It is submitted that Section 197 Cr.P.C. mandates prior sanction from the competent authority before any court can take cognizance of offences alleged against public servants for acts done in the discharge of official duties, and the absence of such sanction renders the complaint liable to dismissal at the threshold under Section 203 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the Sessions Court, being a Special Court under the Atrocities Act, had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint directly, and no irregularity occurred in not forwarding it to the learned Magistrate Court. Thus, it is urged that the revision application lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record, including the complaint alongwith the relevant documents, and the impugned order. The core issue for determination is as to whether the learned Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the complaint for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/352/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined

6. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are the police officers, who qualify as public servants under Section 21 of the IPC. The incident allegedly occurred on 26.10.2020 during a public meeting attended by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, where the police officers were deployed for security, crowd control, and maintenance of law and order. The applicant's own complaint narrates that the officers stopped him and his associates at the main gate, initiated proceedings under Section 151 Cr.P.C. to prevent a potential breach of peace, and took them to the police station. These actions prima facie fall within the ambit of their official duties, such as regulating crowds during a pandemic (as referenced in the complaint regarding COVID-19 guidelines) and preventing unlawful assemblies.

7. The contention of the learned advocate for the applicant that sanction is required only at the cognizance stage and not for filing the complaint is misconceived in the context of private complaints. Under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate examines the complainant on oath and may dismiss the complaint under Section 203, if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. The absence of sanction goes to the root of the maintainability, as no court can take cognizance without it.

8. Regarding the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, Section 193 Cr.P.C. provides that Sessions Courts take cognizance only upon commitment by a Magistrate, but this does not apply to Special Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:05:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/352/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined Courts under the Atrocities Act. Section 14 of the Atrocities Act designates the Court of Sessions as a Special Court with original jurisdiction to try the offences under the Act directly. The complaint invoked provisions of the Atrocities Act alongside IPC sections, vesting the learned Sessions Judge with competence to entertain and decide it without forwarding to a Magistrate. No jurisdictional error is discernible.

9. The plea for a preliminary inquiry is also untenable. The learned Judge, after perusing the complaint, verification, and documents, concluded that the acts were in discharge of official duties--a finding based on the applicant's own narrative. No further inquiry was warranted at that stage, as the bar under Section 197 is absolute in the absence of sanction. The medical evidence of injury, while unfortunate, does not override the statutory requirement of sanction; it may be relevant in a properly instituted proceeding but not here.

10. Thus, admittedly, as reflected from the material on record, as well as the statements and allegations made by the complainant, which are otherwise self-explanatory of the fact that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were discharging their official duties and while taking preventive measures under the law, so as to control and disperse the mobs or assemblies of persons during the COVID period in the event organized for the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the complainant along with the other assembly was called upon to disperse and to maintain SOP issued by the State as well Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:05:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/352/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined as the Central Government during the COVID period. Instead of extending the cooperation, the complainant raised objections and entered into a ruckus which compelled the officers discharging their duties to take only preventive measures which, in the case on hand, have been taken and being aggrieved by the same, the complaint has been lodged. It is also pertinent to note that before approaching the competent authority, at the initial stage, the complainant chose to approach the Special Court, which otherwise can be considered to be a Court of Magistrate for the purpose of conducting an inquiry for the offences under the provisions of the Special Acts, as alleged in the case on hand, which appears to be an undisputed fact. Thus, the sum and substance as emerges from the material is the reason behind the rejection of the complaint by the learned Special Court is that the complaint cannot be lodged against the respondents without obtaining a sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., as they were discharging their duties. They were acting and discharging their duties. Though, the efforts to buttress this case have been made while relying on the medical certificate, which otherwise lacks the information so as to support the case of the complainant in absence of the injury having been inflicted by the respondent and the said glaring fact also seems to be lacking from the questioned certificate. In nutshell, the substance of pleadings as per the provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., which otherwise is to be construed in a broad sense, as the same can be invoked to protect the persons who otherwise are discharging their official duties as appears in the case on hand and the approach of the complainant is nothing but a counterblast Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:05:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/352/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined against the action taken by the respondent, while discharging and acting in their official duties.

11. In continuation of the aforesaid, while attracting investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., when the complaint in question is lodged, it becomes incumbent on the part of the learned Magistrate - Presiding Officer to go through the contents of the complaint in order to proceed and refer the matter to the police for investigation or to take any further steps as contemplated under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Thus, it is deemed that he has taken cognizance as to the contents of the complaint and came to the conclusion that it is a fit case to either refer to the police for investigation or inquiry by the Court itself. Thus, even for the purpose of lodging a private complaint against the public servant, who has been discharging his official duty, the prior sanction is an absolute legal requirement as in absence thereof, any such proceedings initiated would undermine the very purpose behind the provision of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. which otherwise has been formed as instant protection to the officers to discharge their official duties.

12. A beneficial reference can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Suneeti Toteja vs. State of U.P. & Anr., [2025 INSC 267] where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the event of sanction being not granted, it vitiates the very initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused and has observed in paragraph No.32 as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/352/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined "32. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was not right in taking cognizance of the offence against the appellant herein without there being a sanction for prosecution granted by the competent authority. Further, the High Court erred in not considering the fact that the sanction for prosecution was not granted by the competent authority under Section 197 of the CrPC and eventually the sanction was expressly denied by the competent authority with respect to the allegations against the appellant. The necessary sanction not having been granted has vitiated the very initiation of the criminal proceeding against the appellant herein. Consequently, the chargesheet, the summoning order and the consequent steps, if any, taken by the trial court pursuant to the same are liable to be quashed qua the appellant herein and are thus quashed."

13. Thus, looking to the act and conduct of the applicant, the officers stopped him and his associates at the main gate, initiated proceedings under Section 151 Cr.P.C. to prevent a potential breach of peace, and took them to the police station. As such, the act of the respondents herein is in continuation of their official duty and such actions prima facie fall within the ambit of their official duties.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality, or impropriety in the impugned order dated Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:05:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/352/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 05.01.2021. The learned Sessions Judge has correctly applied the law and dismissed the complaint for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The revision application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

15. Under the circumstances, the Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. The impugned order is upheld. No order as to costs. Record and proceedings, if called for, be sent back forthwith.

                                                                                              Sd/-      .
                                                                                      (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
                      MVP/34




                                                                 Page 10 of 10

Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Fri Sep 12 2025                   Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:05:33 IST 2025