Karnataka High Court
Dhanalakshmi vs State By on 2 June, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5726 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. DHANALAKSHMI
W/O RAVISHANKAR
AGE 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.208
9TH B MAIN, PIPELINE ROAD
VIJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040.
2. SUSHEELAMMA
C/O CHIKKAMMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.994
BEHIND BDO COLONY
NEAR PES PU COLLEGE
RURAL POLICE STATION ROAD
MANDYA - 571 401.
3. MANGALA GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
D/O SHREE KANTAIAH
RESIDING AT V.G.DODDI
MAGADI - 562 120
RAMANAGARA.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ABHISHEK.K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI N. SURESHA, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
STATE BY
CHANNAPATNA RURAL POLICE.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED
16.05.2018 IN CR.NO.68/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
RESPONDENT POLICE AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are calling in question proceedings in
C.C.No.290 of 2020 pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.
Dn.) and JMFC, Channapatna arising out of Crime No.68 of
2015, registered for offences punishable under Section 224 of
the IPC. Petitioners are accused 1 to 3.
2. Heard Sri K. Abhishek, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri K.S. Abhijith, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as
borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:
The 1st petitioner is the Superintendent, 2nd petitioner is
the Second Division Assistant and the 3rd petitioner is the
Security of Balakeeyara Bala Mandira, Channapatna. On
29.01.2015, on an incident of escape of one Salma from the
Balamandira, the petitioners herein registers a complaint
against the said girl who escaped from Balamandira for offences
punishable under Sections 370, 372, 373 and 342 of the IPC
r/w. Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention
Act in Crime No. 8/2015. After registration of the complaint by
the 1st petitioner, in particular, a crime came to be registered
against all the petitioners for offences punishable under Section
224 of the IPC on an allegation that the petitioners who had the
responsibility of taking care of the girl of the Balamandira have
let her escape and on such incident, the aforesaid offence is
alleged against the petitioners.
4. The narration in the complaint was that on 02.03.2015,
the said girl Salma pretended like that she wanted to go to wash
room at 10-30 p.m., goes outside, pushes the security and runs
out. On 04-03-2015, the petitioners appear to have searched
along with the help of other staff members and later registered
the complaint with regard to escape of Salma. Complaint was
registered in turn, against the petitioners in Crime No.68 of
2015 and the respondents file a charge sheet against the
petitioners for offence punishable under Section 224 of the IPC.
It is at that juncture, the petitioners have knocked the doors of
this Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
vehemently argue and contend that the offence alleged against
the petitioners under Section 224 of the IPC is not even
maintainable as no such offence can be made against the
petitioners. He would further submit that the petitioners being
Government Servants are entitled to protection under Section
197 of the Cr.P.C. as no sanction is accorded by Government to
prosecute the petitioners and cognizance by the Court is taken
without any sanction being placed by the investigating agency.
He would seek quashment of the entire proceedings.
6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government
Pleader would refute the submissions to contend that the
petitioners have been negligent in letting of the girl who was in
their protection and they are liable for such punishment under
Section 224 of the IPC and the charge sheet having been filed, it
is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and
perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
petitioners being employees of Balakeeyara Bala Mandira, which
is a Government run entity, is not in dispute. The 1st petitioner
is working as Superintendent and the 2nd petitioner as Second
Division Assistant and therefore, they are employees of the
Government. Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. gives protection to such
Government Servants prior to initiation of prosecution as
Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that no Court shall take
cognizance of an offence made under the IPC, except with the
previous sanction of the Government. Admittedly, there is no
such document placed before the competent Court or even
before this Court for having obtained any sanction for initiation
of the proceedings. Thus, the order taking cognizance would be
rendered unsustainable. The view of mine in this regard is
fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
D.DEVARAJA v. OWAIS SABEER HUSSAIN1, wherein it holds
that if an officer / employee of the Government has indulged in
any act which would become offence punishable under the IPC,
sanction being accorded by the competent authority for such
prosecution is mandatory, if the act so committed is in the
discharge of official duty. It is not in dispute that the girl had
escaped and the allegation is that the petitioners have neglected
in discharging their duty and letting the girl to escape.
AIR 2020 SC 3292
Therefore, the formalities under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was
mandatory.
9. Section 224 of the IPC reads as follows:
"224. Resistance or obstruction by a person
to his lawful apprehension.--Whoever intentionally
offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the
lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with
which he is charged or of which he has been
convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any
custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such
offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years,
or with fine, or with both.
Explanation.--The punishment in this section is
in addition to the punishment for which the person to
be apprehended or detained in custody was liable for
the offence with which he was charged, or of which he
was convicted."
Section 224 directs whoever intentionally offers any resistance
or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for
any offence with which he is charged or escapes or attempts to
escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any
such offence, shall be punished in accordance with Section 224
of the IPC. Therefore, the said offence itself cannot be laid
against the petitioners as the petitioners have not attempted to
escape from any custody in which they were lawfully detained or
have offered any resistance or illegally obstructed to any lawful
apprehension. Therefore, the very invocation of Section 224 IPC
against the petitioners is erroneous. On both these counts,
further proceedings against the petitioners cannot be permitted
to continue as it would result in miscarriage of justice.
Therefore, I deem it appropriate to exercise jurisdiction of this
Court and terminate the proceedings against the petitioners.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The charge sheet dated 16.05.2018 in Crime No.68 of
2015 of Channapatna Rural Police Station,
Ramanagara District stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nvj
CT:MJ
