Delhi High Court
Prashant Kumar Nema vs State & Anr. on 19 December, 2023
Author: Sudhir Kumar Jain
Bench: Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: September 13, 2023
Date of Decision: December 19, 2023
+ CRL.M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL.M.A. 12277/2019
OM PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Arora, Ms.
Radhika Arora and Mr.
Abhay, Advocates
V
STATE & ANOTHER ....Respondents
Through:
Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for
State/Respondent no1
Mr. F.S. Chauhan and Ms.
UshaKashyap, Advocates for
Respondent no 2
+ CRL.M.C. 3092/2019 & CRL.M.A. 12466/2019
PRASHANT KUMAR NEMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Arora, Ms.
Radhika Arora and Mr.
Abhay, Advocates
V
STATE & ANOTHER ....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for
State/Respondent no1
Mr. F.S. Chauhan and Ms.
UshaKashyap, Advocates for
Respondent no 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 1
Signing Date:21.12.2023
11:33:01
CORAM
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT
1. The petition bearing no 3054/2019 and 3092/2019 are filed under
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to
as "the code") to impugn the order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the
court of Ms. Deepti Devesh, MM-04, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi and order dated 07.05.2019 passed by Sh. Gurdeep Singh,
Additional Sessions Judge-01, Special Judge (POCSO), Karkardooma
Courts; and order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the court of Ms. Deepti
Devesh, MM-04, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi respectively.
2. The factual background of the case is that Jaiveer (hereinafter
referred to as "the respondent no. 2") filed an application under
section 156(3) of the Code titled as Jaiveer V State & others bearing
no 11633/2016 wherein implicated Inspector Prashant Kumar, SHO of
PS Welcome Colony (petitioner in petition bearing no 3092/2019);
ASI Om Prakash, PS Welcome Colony (petitioner in petition bearing
no 3054/2019) and another Sub Inspector for having committed
offences punishable under sections 166, 166A,167, 195A, 217, 220,
323, 327, 342 &506 IPC read with 34 IPC against the respondent no 2
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 2
and Sunder on 19.01.2016 at about 5 pm-10:30 pm in the Police
Station Welcome. The respondent no 2 alleged that petitioners
voluntarily caused hurt to the respondent no 2 for extorting valuable
data from his mobile phone and his signatures on blank papers for
constraining the applicant to appear before concerned court on
20.01.2016 in an application filed in FIR bearing no 0159/2013 under
sections 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC registered at PS Welcome. The
respondent no 2 and Sunder were released from the wrongful
confinement by the petitioners in the intervening night of 19 th and 20th
January, 2016. The respondent no 2 and Sunder came to the court on
20.01.2016 where the petitioner SI Om Prakash was present and
confronted him. The respondent no 2 on 20.01.2016 submitted
complaint to DCP (North-East) with copies to Hon'ble Lieutenant
Governor of Delhi, Commissioner of Police and DCP (Vigilance). The
respondent no 2 also annexed his photograph showing injury on his
face caused by the petitioners. The allegations made in complaint
dated 20.01.2016 disclosed the commission of offences by the
petitioners on 19.01.2016 inside PS Welcome punishable under
sections 166, 166A,167, 195A, 217, 220,323, 327, 342 & 506 read
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 3
with section 34 IPC but no action was taken against them and no FIR
was registered against them. It was prayed as under:-
I. To direct the respondent No. 1 to register the
information/complaint of the applicant dated 20.01.2016
disclosing the commission of the offences, interalia,
punishable u/s 166, 166A,167, 195A, 217, 220, 323, 327, 342
& 506 read with 34 IPC at Police Station Welcome Colony.
II. To provide a copy of the information as recorded to the
applicant, free of cost
III To direct the investigation thereof, in accordance with
law
IV To call for the reports from the respondent No. 2 and 3 as
to what action, if any, they have taken to ensure the Rule of
Law and compliance of the above quoted observations of the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari v/s Govt of U.P. &
others
(Supra) in the facts of the present case
V. To pass any other order or direction as deemed
appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case and in
the interests of justice.
3. SI Munish Chaudhary PS Welcome Colony submitted Status Report
dated 16.07.2016 wherein it was stated that FIR bearing no 159/13
under sections 323/341/506/34 IPC was registered at PS Welcome on
the statement of the respondent no 2 and investigation of was assigned
to ASI Om Prakash/petitioner. Vikas and Ajay Kumar were
apprehended as accused and were released on personal bond after
interrogation. The doctor opined nature of injuries stated to be
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 4
received by the respondent no 2 as Simple. The charge sheet has
already been filed after conclusion of investigation. The respondent no
2 along with another person namely Sunder during investigation of
FIR bearing no 159/13 on 19.01.16 came to PS and informed that
Sunder is eye witness of the incident which occurred on 24.04.13. The
respondent no 2 produced eye-witness on 19.01.16 i.e. after a period
of 2years and 9 months. Sunder was examined and after examination
it was found that he was not present at spot at time of incident and was
produced by the respondent as an eye-witness and due to reason his
statement under section 161 of the Code was not recorded. The
respondent no 2 made false and vague allegations against
Investigating Officer and left police station voluntarily. The
respondent no2 and Sunder were not detained in police station and
were not assaulted.
4. The court of Ms. Deepti Devesh, Metropolitan Magistrate-04,
Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts (hereinafter referred to as "the trial
court") vide order dated 04.10.2018 directed SHO, PS Welcome to
register FIR under appropriate sections of law. The order dated
04.10.2018 reflects that the respondent no 2 was a witness in FIR
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 5
bearing no 198/11 registered at PS Jyoti Nagar under section 302 IPC
and accused therein namely Ajay and Vikas threatened and assaulted
the respondent no 2 with a sharp weapon on 24.04.2013 and
accordingly FIR no 159/13 PS was registered at PS Welcome but
investigation was not carried in said FIR till filing of application by
the respondent no 2 in 2015 before concerned court. The trial court
observed as under:-
Bare perusal of the allegations made in the present
application show that allegations are serious and that they
are substantiated with documents. There is status report
dated 01.10.2015 by ASI Om Prakash on record stating that
despite efforts, accused persons could not be traced in FIR
No. 159/13 PS Welcome. When trial of FIR 198/11 PS Jyoti
Nagar was already pending and accused persons are the
same in both the FIRs, then it is not understandable as to
how the same accused persons were not traced, when trial
against them was pending in different FIR before court. In
the written arguments furnished by counsel for complainant,
it is also stated that the charge sheet of FIR No.159/13 PS
Welcome had already been forwarded by concerned ACP on
10.12.2015. Therefore, the report dated 01.10.2015by ASI
Om Prakash stating that investigation is still on going in case
FIR No. 159/13 PS Welcome is a false report. Hence, there
appears to be something fishy going on in the abovesaid FIR,
which leads to primafacie case of illegal protection being
given to the accused persons in FIR No. 198/11 PS Jyoti
Nagar and FIR no. 159/13 PS Welcome.
Furthermore, the allegations reveal that the alleged offences
had taken place inside the premises of PS Welcome. In the
ATR it has been questioned that complainant has not made
any 100number call on the day of the alleged incident. It is
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 6
preposterous to expect complainant to call on 100 number,
while being beaten by police officials only inside the
premises of police station only. The accused persons in the
instant case are police officials and in fact high ranking,
police officials. Therefore, it would not be within the reach
of the complainant to collect evidence against them or to
ensure presence of witnesses for their testimony. Due to the
high rank of police officials involved, it is also possible that
witnesses may be unduly influenced or coerced. Facts and
circumstances disclosed on record along with documents
placed, show commission of cognizable offence, hence SHO,
PS Welcome is directed to register an FIR under
appropriate sections of law in the present case
.
5. The petitioner Om Prakash in Crl. M.C. no 3054/2019 filed criminal
revision bearing no 268/18 titled as Om Prakash V State & another
which was dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2019 passed by the court
of Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Additional Sessions Judge-01, Shahdara,
Karkardooma Courts (hereinafter referred as "the revisional court").
The revisional court also referred factual background in order dated
07.05.2019. The factual position as reflecting from order dated
07.05.2019 is that FIR bearing no 159/13 was registered under section
323/341/506/34 IPC at PS Welcome against the accused Ajay and
Vikas for committing murderous assault on the respondent no 2 with a
sharp edged weapon on 24.4.2013 against whom FIR bearing no
198/2011 under section 302 IPC was already registered for
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 7
committing murder of the brother of the respondent no 2 on
14.05.2011. The police did not proceed with the investigation until
22.9.2015 when application is filed for status report before concerned
court. The Investigating Officer of FIR bearing no 159/2013 in
connivance with accused was not recording statement of eye witness
and ASI Om Prakash on 11.12.2015 in the court of Sh. Muneesh Garg,
Metropolitan Magistrate agreed to record the statement of Sunder on
19.01.2016 at 5.00 pm. The respondent no 2 along with witness
reached at PS Welcome. The Investigating Officer took them to his
room and sent the respondent no 2 to buy a pen from the market and
examined the witness Sunder in his absence who is illiterate. ASI Om
Parkash after the respondent no 2 came back with the pen again started
asking the question to the witness and recording of the statement. The
respondent no 2 due to early threats of false implication switched on
the voice recorder of his mobilephone. SHO and another SI also came
there. ASI Om Prakash after being pointed that his voice was under
recording then ASI Om Prakash snatched mobile and tore off the
statement of the witness already recorded by him and also started
beating the respondent no 2 and abused the witness also. SHO and
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 8
another SI also started to beat the respondent no 2 by slapping on the
face of the respondent no 2. The respondent no 2 and witness Sunder
were also detained and many documents were prepared for false
implication of the respondent no 2.The respondent no 2 and witness
Sunder were released at about 10.30 pm with condition that he and the
witness would not appear on 20.1.2016 in the court of Sh. Muneesh
Garg, Metropolitan Magistrate. The revisional court also referred
status report dated 29.08.2018 filed by ACP/Seelampur, North-East
before the trial court wherein it was stated that eye-witness was
produced by complainant i.e. the respondent no 2 after 2years and 9
months for recording of his statement who during inquiry has failed to
reply few cross questions and was appeared to be a planted witness
and was not present at the place of occurrence and accordingly his
statement was not recorded. The respondent no 2 levelled false and
vague allegations against the Investigating Officer and the respondent
no 2 and witness Sunder left the police station voluntarily. They were
neither detained nor were physically assaulted.
5.1 The petitioner argued before the revisionist court that requisite
sanction under section 140 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 was also not
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 9
obtained and relied upon various decisions. The respondent no 2
argued that no sanction either under section 197 of the Code or under
section 140 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 is required and cited various
decisions. The revisional court while dealing with issue of sanction
under section 197 of the Code and under section 140 of the Delhi
Police Act, 1978 referred Paul George V State of NCT of Delhi,
2008 (3) SCALE 614 wherein it was observed that if the act does not
fall within the colour of duty then it will not be covered under section
140 of Delhi Police Act,1978 and hence sanction is not required. The
revisional court observed as under:-
The revisionist in the present case admittedly does not
require sanction of government for removal from office and
therefore sanction under S. 197 Cr.PC has no application in
this case. As regards S. 140 of D. P. Act, the question arises
whether the revisionist was acting in colour of duty? As per
complaint, while complainant/ respondent was making
recording in his mobile phone, revisionist alongwith other
police officials snatched his mobile, started beating him and
abusing witness. Complainant was given so many slaps on
his face, he got injury which is visible in the photographs.
Therefore the complainant was given beatings inside the
police station which resulted in injury which by no stretch of
imagination can be called acting in 'colour of duty'.
Therefore sanction under S. 140 D. P. Act and 197 Cr.P.C.
Act is not required.
5.2The revisional court also discussed issues whether sanction is
required before initiation of proceedings under section 156 of the
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 10
Code and different scope of proceedings under section 200 of the
Code and 156(3) of the Code. The revisional court preferred to dismiss
the revision petition and upheld order dated 04.10. 2018 passed by the
trial court.
6. The petitioner Om Prakash in Crl. M.C. no 3054/2019 being
aggrieved by order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the trial court and
order dated 07.05.2019 passed by the revisional court preferred
petition bearing no 3054/2019. The petitioner Prashant Kumar Nema
in Crl. M.C. no 3092/2019 being aggrieved by order dated 04.10.2018
passed by the trial court preferred petition bearing no 3092/2019.
6.1The petitioner Om Prakash challenged order dated 04.10.2018 and
order dated 07.05.2019 and the petitioner Prashant Kumar Nema in
Crl. M.C. no 3092/2019 challenged order dated 04.10.2018 primarily
on grounds that orders were passed without application of mind and
are illegal, perverse and against the settled principles of law. The
revisional court erred while observing that the petitioner is not public
servant to be removed by sanction of government as such sanction
under section 197 of the Code is not required. The allegations as stated
in the complaint do not disclosed any cognizable offence. The
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 11
petitioner did not commit any disobedience of law or any direction
under law as the chargesheet in FIR 159/13 has already been filed.
The respondent no 2 and witness Sunder as per allegations were in
room of the petitioner and were not in confinement and there is no
allegation of any extortion of any property or valuable security from
the respondent no 2 by the petitioner. The petitioner being the
investigating officer in FIR bearing no 159/13 after inquiry did not
find witness Sunder trustworthy and independent and accordingly
refused to cite him as a witness in the case and due to this, the
respondent no 2 levelled false allegations. The courts below
completely ignored Status Report. The allegations against the
petitioner do not constitute any offence and courts below have failed
to consider that police investigation was not required. The petitioner
arrested the accused on 26.10.2015 and chargesheet was prepared on
10.12.2015 after conclusion of investigation. The order dated
04.10.208 passed by the trial court and order dated 07.05.2019 passed
by the revisional court are liable to be set aside.
6.2The respondent no 2 filed counter affidavit in both petitions and
denied contents of petitions being misconceived.
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 12
7. The counsel for the petitioners primarily argued on basis of grounds
as mentioned in petition. The counsel for the petitioners argued that
the orders dated 04.10.2018 and 07.05.2019 are liable to be set aside
as passed without applying the judicial mind and the courts below
have failed to appreciate the fact that no cognizable offence is made
out. The charge sheet has already been filed in FIR bearing no
159/2013. The allegations regarding beating of the respondent no 2
and Sunder against the petitioners are false and absolutely vague. The
trial court passed order dated 04.10.2019 without specifying any
particular offence but passed general order which is against law. The
order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the trial court and order dated
07.05.2019 are bad in law for want of sanction under section 140 of
the Delhi Police Act, 1978 and section 197 of the Code. The counsel
for the petitioners in petitions relied upon Braham Singh V State,
Crl. Rev. P. bearing no 819 of 2006 decided on 02.11.2006; Rakesh
Kumar V State (NCT of Delhi),Crl. M.C. No. 2881/2007; Anil
Kumar & others V M. K. Aiyappa&anothe, Criminal Appeal
Nos.1590-1591 of 2013 (Special Leave Petition'(Criminal) Nos.6652-
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 13
6653 of 2013) and D. T. Virupakshappa V C. Subhash, Criminal
Appeal No.722 of 2015.
8. The counsel for the respondent no 2 advanced oral arguments and
also submitted oral arguments. The counsel for the respondent no 2
besides narrating facts argued that as FIR under section 154(1) of the
Code was not recorded as such he filed an application under section
156(3) of the Code and trial court vide order dated 04.10.2018 has
directed for registration of FIR in accordance with law which was
affirmed by the revisional court vide order dated 07. 05.2019. The
petitions under section 482 of the Code are not maintainable and are
liable to be dismissed. The counsel for the respondents also advanced
other arguments as detailed in written submissions.
9. It is reflecting that FIR bearing no 198/2011 was registered under
section 302 IPC at PS Jyoti Nagar wherein Vikas and Ajay were
implicated as accused. Thereafter FIR bearing no 159/13 was
registered under sections 323/341/506/34 IPC at PS Welcome against
the accused Ajay and Vikas for allegedly assaulting the respondent no
2 with a sharp edged weapon on 24.4.2013. The police allegedly did
not proceed with the investigation till 22.9.2015 when the respondent
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 14
no 2 filed an application before concerned court of Metropolitan
Magistrate for calling Status Report regarding investigation in FIR
159/13. The petitioner Om Prakash being the Investigating Officer in
FIR bearing no 159/2013 has agreed to record statement of eye
witness Sunder on 19.01.2016 at 5.00 pm. The respondent no 2 along
with witness Sunder visited at PS Welcome. The respondent no 2
produced eye-witness on 19.01.16 i.e. after a period of 2 years and 9
months. The petitioner Om Prakash being investigating Officer took
the respondent no 2 and witness Sunder to his room. The respondent
no 2 started to record statement of Sunder in voice recorder of mobile
phone. The petitioner Om Prakash preliminary examined Sunder and
after examination noticed that he was not present at spot at time of
incident and was introduced by the respondent no 2 as an eye-witness.
The petitioner Om Prakash preferred not to record statement of Sunder
under section 161 of the Code. The respondent no 2 was allegedly
beaten by the petitioners and another Sub Inspector (SI) in police
station. The respondent no 2 made a written complaint dated
20.01.2016 to DCP, District North-East. The charge sheet after
conclusion of investigation in FIR bearing no 159/13 has already been
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 15
filed. The respondent no 2 filed an application under section 156(3) of
the Code for initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioners and
another Sub-Inspector for offences punishable under
sections166,166A,167,195A, 217,220, 323,327, 342 &506 IPC read
with section 34 IPC.
9.1 The trial court dated 04.10.2018directed SHO PS Welcome to
register FIR under appropriate sections of law by observing that
allegations referred in complaint are serious and substantiated with
documents and illegal protection is given to the accused named in FIR
bearing no FIR bearing no 159/13 registered at PS Welcome. The trial
court also observed that alleged offences took place inside PS
Welcome and as such the respondent no 2 cannot collect evidence
against police officials. The revisional court in order dated 07.05.2019
while dealing with issue of sanction under section 197 of the Code and
under section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 referred Paul George
V State of NCT of Delhi, 2008 (3) SCALE 614 and observed that the
respondent no 2was given beatings inside the police station which
resulted in injury and as such said act can be called acting in 'colour of
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 16
duty' and therefore sanction under section 140 Delhi Police Act, 1978
and 197 of the Code Act is not required.
10. Issue which needs judicial consideration is that whether sanction
under section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 is required to
prosecute the petitioners who are police officials under given facts and
circumstances of case as alleged by the respondent no 2. Section 140
of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 reads as under:-
140. Bar to suits and prosecutions.-
(1) In any case of alleged offence by a police officer or
other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by
such police officer or other person, by any act done
under colour of duty or authority or in excess of an such
duty or authority, or wherein it shall appear to the court
that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of
the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not
be entertained and if entertained shall be dismissed if it
is instituted, more than three months after the date of
the act complained of: Provided that any such
prosecution against a Police Officer or other person may
be entertained by the court, if instituted with the
previous sanction of the Administrator, within one year
from the date of the offence.
(2) In the case of an intended suit on account of such a
wrong as aforesaid, the person intending to sue shall give
to the alleged wrongdoer not less than one month' s
notice of the intended suit with sufficient description of
the wrong complained of, and if no such notice has been
given before the institution of the suit, it shall be
dismissed.
(3) The plaint shall set forth that a notice as aforesaid
has been served on the defendant and the date of such
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 17
service and shall state what tender of amends, if any, has
been made by the defendant and a copy of the said notice
shall be annexed to the plaint endorsed or accompanied
with a declaration by the plaintiff of the time and
manner of service thereof,
10.1 The Supreme Court in Satyavir Singh Rathi V State through
CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 2231 of 2009 decided on 02nd May, 2011
observed that the date of cognizance taken by a magistrate would be
the date for the institution of the criminal proceedings and section 140
of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 would be available qua all penal statutes.
The Supreme Court in Satyavir Singh Rathi V State through
CBIalso discussed the expression 'colour of duty' and referred State
of Andhra Pradesh vs. N.Venugopal, AIR 1964 SC 33wherein it
was held as under:-
It is easy to see that if the act complained of is wholly
justified by law, it would not amount to an offence at all in
view of the provisions of S.79 of the Indian Penal Code.
Many cases may however arise wherein acting under the
provisions of the Police Act or other law conferring powers
on the police the police officer or some other person may go
beyond what is strictly justified in law. Though Sec.79 of the
Indian Penal Code will have no application to such cases,
Sec.53 of the Police Act will apply. But Sec.53 applies to only
a limited class of persons. So, it becomes the task of the
Court, whenever any question whether this section applies
or not arises to bestow particular care on its decision. In
doing this it has to ascertain first what act is complained of
and then to examine if there is any provision of the Police
Act or other law conferring powers on the police under
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 18
which it may be said to have been done or intended to be
done. The Court has to remember in this connection that an
act is not "under" a provision of law merely because the
point of time at which it is done coincides with the point of
time when some act is done in the exercise of the powers
granted by the provision or in performance of the duty
imposed by it. To be able to say that an act is done "under"
a provision of law, one must discover the existence of a
reasonable relationship between the provisions and the act.
In the absence of such a relation the act cannot be said to be
done "under" the particular provision of law."
10.2 The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V Narhar Rao,
AIR 1966 SC 1783 while dealing with the question as to whether the
acceptance of a bribe by a police official with the object of weakening
the prosecution case could be said under to be under „colour of duty‟
or in excess of his duty observed as under:
But unless there is a reasonable connection between the act
complained of and the powers and duties of the office, it
cannot be said that the act was done by the accused officer
under the colour of his office. Applying this test to the
present case, we are of the opinion that the alleged
acceptance of bribe by the respondent was not an act which
could be said to have been done under the colour of his office
or done in excess of his duty or authority within the meaning
of S.161(1) of the Bombay Police Act. It follows, therefore,
that the High Court was in error in holding that the
prosecution of the respondent was barred because of the
period of limitation prescribed under Sec.161(1) of the
Bombay Police Act. The view that we have expressed is
borne out by the decision of this Court in State of Andhra
Pradesh vs. N.Venugopal, AIR 1964 SC 33, in which the
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 19
Court had construed the language of a similar provision of
S.53 of the Madras District Police Act (Act 24 of 1859). It
was pointed out in that case that the effect of S.53 of that Act
was that all prosecutions whether against a police officer or
a person other than a police officer (i.e. a member of the
Madras Fire Service, above the rank of a fireman acting
under S.42 of the Act) must be commenced within three
months after the act complained of, if the act is one which
has been done or intended to be done under any of the
provisions of the Police Act. In that case, the accused police
officers were charged under Ss.348 and 331 of the Indian
Penal Code for wrongly confining a suspect ArigeRamanua
in the course of investigation ad causing him injuries. The
accused were convicted by the Sessions Judge under Ss.348
and 331 of the Indian Penal Code but in appeal the Andhra
Pradesh High Court held that the bar under S.53 of the
Police Act applied and the accused were entitled to an
acquittal. It was, however, held by this Court that the
prosecution was not barred under S.53 of the Police Act, for
it cannot be said that the acts of beating a person suspected
of a crime or confining him or sending him away in an
injured condition by the police at a time when they were
engaged in investigation are acts done or intended to be done
under the provisions of the Madras District Police Act or
Criminal Procedure Code or any other law conferring
powers on the police. The appeal was accordingly allowed by
this Court and the acquittal of the respondent set aside.
10.3The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra VAtma Ram, AIR
1966 SC 1786 where the question was as to whether the action of a
police officer in beating and confining a person suspected of having
stolen goods in his possession could be said to be under colour of duty
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 20
has referred State of Andhra Pradesh V N.Venugopal and State of
Maharashtra V Narhar Rao and held as under:-
The provisions of Ss.161 and 163 of the Criminal Procedure
Code emphasize the fact that a police officer is prohibited
from beating or confining persons with a view to induce
them to make statements. In view of the statutory
prohibition it cannot, possibly, be said that the acts,
complained of, in this case, are acts done by the respondents
under the colour of their duty or authority. In our opinion,
there is no connection, in this case between the acts
complained of and the office of the respondents and the
duties and obligations imposed on them by law. On the other
hand, the alleged acts fall completely outside the scope of the
duties of the respondents and they are not entitled,
therefore, to the mantle of protection conferred by S. 161 (1)
of the Bombay Police Act.
10.4The Supreme Court in Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave &
another V The State of Gujarat, AIR 1968 SC 1323wherein the
allegation against the police officer was of taking advantage of his
position and attempting to coerce a person to give him a bribe. The
plea of colour of duty was negative by this Court. It was observed as
under:-
All that can be said in the present case is that the first
appellant a police officer, taking advantage of his position as
a police officer and availing himself of the opportunity
afforded by the letter Madhukanta handed over to him,
coerced Ramanlal to pay illegal gratification to him. This
cannot be said to have been done under colour of duty.
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 21
10.5 In Prof. Sumer Chand V Union of India & others, 1994 (1)
SCC 64 Professor Sumer Chand and several others were brought to
trial initiated on a first information report but were acquitted by the
trial court. Professor Sumer Chand thereupon filed a suit against the
Investigating officer and other police officials for malicious
prosecution claiming Rs.3 Lacs as damages. The Supreme Court held
that the prosecution had been initiated on the basis of a First
Information Report and it was the duty of a Police Officer to
investigate the matter and to file a charge-sheet, if necessary, and that
there was a discernible connection between the act complained of by
the appellant and the powers and duties of the Police Officer. The
Supreme Court endorsed the opinion of the High Court that the act of
the Police Officer complained of fell within the description of 'colour
of duty'.
10.6The Supreme Court in Satyavir Singh Rathi V State through
CBI referred and discussed above mentioned decisions of the
Supreme Court and held that it cannot, by any stretch of imagination,
be claimed by anybody that a case of murder would fall within the
expression 'colour of duty'. There is absolutely no connection
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 22
between the act of the appellants and the allegations against them.
Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act would, therefore, have absolutely
no relevance in this case.
10.7 The revisional court in dated 07.05.2019 referred Paul George V
State of NCT of Delhi, 2008 (3) SCALE 614 and Satyavir Singh
Rathi V State through CBI. In Paul George V State of NCT of
Delhi as observed by the revisional court, the appellant was working
as Head Constable with Delhi Police and was directed to go to Police
Head Quarter for urgent work and was driving a police truck. The
vehicle on way went over a road divider and hit a scooter driven by
deceased and pillion rider. The appellant was tried under sections
279/304 A IPC. The appellant was convicted and sentenced was
confirmed by the first appellate court and by the High Court in
revision. The appellant in SLP before the Supreme Court pleaded
thatthe prosecution was bad abinitio as being beyond limitation
prescribed under section 140 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 and sanction as
the appellant had been acting under the colour of duty and case was
remitted to the High Court. The case considered by the Supreme Court
pertaining to issue of sanction under section 140 of the Delhi Police
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 23
Act, 1978. The Supreme Court observed that section 140 is applicable
only where act is under colour of duty and held that appellant was
undoubtedly entrusted with the duty but by jumping road divider and
coming face on the incoming traffic was the factor which had caused
the accident and was clearly not a matter within the 'colour of duty'
and act will not be covered under section 140 of the Delhi Police Act,
1978 and hence sanction was not required.
10.8 In present petitions FIR bearing no 159/13 was registered under
sections 323/341/506/34 IPC at PS Welcome against the accused Ajay
and Vikas on complaint made by the respondent no 2 pertaining to
incident stated to be happened on 24.4.2013.The petitioner Om
Prakash was assigned investigation pertaining to FIR bearing no
159/13 and the petitioner Parshant Kumar Nema was SHO of PS
Welcome at relevant time. The respondent no 2 on 19.01.2016 brought
Sunder who was stated to be eye witness of incident happened on
24.04.2013 at PS Welcome for purpose of investigation. The petitioner
Om Prakash after preliminary questioning from Sunder came to
conclusion that Sunder was not an eye witness of incident happened
on 24.04.2013 and was introduced by the respondent no 2 after about
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 24
3 years from date of incident. The petitioner preferred not to record
statement of Sunder. If the petitioner did not prefer to record statement
of Sunder after preliminary questioning, the petitioner Om Prakash
was acting under colour of his duty. The respondent no 2 although was
complainant in FIR bearing no 159/13 cannot compel the petitioner
Om Prakash to record statement of Sunder during investigation. The
petitioner Om Prakash was within authority and right being
investigating officer not to record statement of Sunder. The
investigation falls within jurisdiction of the investigating officer
although the investigating officer is always under an obligation to
conduct in fair and impartial manner and also collect relevant and
appropriate evidences during evidences. The respondent no 2 cannot
challenge authority of the petitioner Om Prakash regarding mode and
manner of conduction of investigation pertaining to FIR no 159/13.
10.9 The respondent no 2 also alleged that he started recording of
statement of Sunder in voice recorder of his mobile phone then the
petitioner Prashant Kumar Nema who was SHO of PS Welcome along
with another Sub-Inspector came there and pointed out to the
petitioner Om Prakash regarding recording of statement of Sunder.
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 25
Thereafter the petitioner Om Prakash snatched mobile phone for
deleting data and the respondent was beaten by the petitioners Om
Prakash and Prashant Kumar Nema and was also detained there. The
beatings allegedly given to the respondent no 2 and witness Sunder by
the petitioners Om Prakash and Prashant Kumar Nema on 19.01.2016
cannot be act done in discharge of official duty and are not covered
under protection as per mandate of section 140 of Delhi Police Act,
1978.
10.10 However there is no convincing material filed by the respondent
no 2 along with application under section 156(3) of the Code
regarding alleged beatings to him. The respondent no 2 made only
general allegations regarding alleged beatings by the petitioners Om
Prakash and Prashant Kumar Nema without any specification. The
order dated 04.10.2018 is based on assumption and presumption and
was passed in absence of any convincing material. The observations
made by the trial court in order dated 04.10.2018 are not relevant for
purpose of issuance of direction for registration of FIR. The trial court
in order dated 04.10.2018 also observed that allegations are serious in
nature and substantiated with documents but the respondent no 2 did
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 26
not place any document except one photograph as appeared from order
dated 07.05.2019 passed by the revisional court which cannot be
accepted as even prima facie convincing document to establish alleged
beatings of the respondent no 2 on 19.01.2016 by the petitioners and
another sub-inspector. The trial court only issued vague directions to
concerned SHO for registration of FIR on application under section
156(3) filed by the respondent no 2. The revisional court though
rightly observed that the petitioners are not entitled for protection
either under section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 or section 197
of the Code but did not consider properly about allegations of the
respondent no 2 in right perspective and directions to ascertain
genuineness of the allegations of the respondent no 2. There is no
substance in allegations of the respondent no 2 regarding his beatings
on 19.01.2016 by the petitioners in PS Welcome. The issuance of
direction for registration of FIR is serious judicial function and should
be passed with due application of judicial mind and not in casual and
cryptic manner. The trial court should not have issue directions for
registration of FIR against the petitioners. The counsel for the
petitioners has rightly argued that courts below passed orders dated
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 27
04.10.2018 and 07.05.2019 without application of judicial mind and
after taking into considerations relevant facts. The arguments
advanced by the counsel for the respondent no 2 are not convincing
and cannot be accepted.
11. The respondent no 2 has not preferred complaint under section 200
of the Code as such no liberty can be given to the respondent no 2 lead
evidence. The order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the trial court and
order dated 07.05.2019 cannot be sustained in law and are liable to be
set aside. Accordingly petitions bearing no 3092/2019 and 3054/19 are
allowed.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 19, 2023
abk
By:JITENDRA CRL. M.C. 3054/2019 & CRL. M.C. 3092/2019 Page 28
