Patna High Court
Harpreet Kaur vs The State Of Bihar on 16 April, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60841 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13373 Year-2014 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Begusarai
======================================================
Harpreet Kaur, Wife of Manavjit Singh Dhillon, R/O 17/1322 street
No ,7 Kartar Nagar, Chheharta ,District -Amritsar ,Punjab
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Abhinav Kumar Akela, S/O Ashok Kumar, Resident of Village-
Pahsara, P.S.-Navkothi Distt-Begusarai.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
With
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 62600 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13373 Year-2014 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Begusarai
======================================================
Rajkishor Singh S/o- Vijay Singh Resident Of Purab Sarai P.s - Kotwali
District- Munger
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Abhinav Kumar Akela Son of Sri Ashok Kumar Village- Pahsara Ps-
Navkothi Dist- Begusarai
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 60841 of 2024 & its analogous matters)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rana Vikram Singh, Advocate
Mr.Saket Tiwary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 16-04-2025
Heard Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner(s) and Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey,
learned A.P.P. for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
2/26
2. Both aforesaid petitions preferred under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") for quashing the order dated
29.04.2024
passed in connection with Complaint Case No.
13373(C) of 2014, whereby learned Magistrate has been
pleased to take cognizance of the offences punishable under
Section 166, 323, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code
(in short the "I.P.C.") and issued summon to all the accused
persons including the petitioner(s).
3.The brief case of the prosecution, as it appears
from complaint petition, is that a one day 'Begusarai Bandh'
was called for by the 'Aparadh Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti' on
28.03.2014, as to protest the occurrence of kidnapping of
three childrens in Begusarai and killing of one child namely,
Piyush after his kidnapping. The aforesaid 'Bandh/strike'
claimed to be supported by the civil societies and business
organizations beside two district advocate associations of
Begusarai also by getting themselves away from the court
work. It appears from the complaint that aforesaid call for
strike was duly informed in writing by Suman Kumar, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
convener of "Aparadh Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti" to the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Begusarai and it was also published in
various newspapers in advance. Narrating further, when the
protesters on the day of strike i.e. on 28.03.2014, while
marching towards Power House Chowk, Begusarai, accused
A2 namely, Raj Kishore Singh (Deputy Superintendent of
Police/petitioner), accused A3 namely, Satya Prakash Mishra
(Sadar S.D.O.) and accused A4 namely, Niranjan Kumar
(Circle Officer) came along with armed forces and took away
the complainant along with fellow protesters/witnesses
namely, Amrendra Kumar, Zafir Khan, Anil Kumar Anjan,
Rupak Kumar, Chandradeo Verma, Sikander Rai, Pushkar
Prasad Singh to the Town Thana. After half an hour of that,
other protesters namely, Mukund Kumar, Sujeet Kumar and
Murari Kumar wer ealso brought to the Town Thana. At
around 12:00 P.M., accused No. 1 namely, Harpreet Kaur, the
then Superintendent of Police, Begusarai (petitioner) reached
the Town Thana and started abusing them. When the
detained protesters, as aforesaid, stated that they were only
peacefully protesting against the up-coming crimes and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
criminals, accused A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 namely, Meghnath
Singh, started abusing and assaulting them. Petitioner (A1)
assaulted Zafir Khan and Rupak Kumar, who was physically
disabled person (being differently abled) by using rod and also
inflicted repeated blows on the back, buttock and legs.
Subsequently, A1, Harpreet Kaur (petitioner) kicked the
testicles of Zafir Khan with her boots causing bleeding from
his penis. Accused A2, DySP, Raj Kishore Singh assaulted
Mukund Kumar by using his police rod causing fracture of his
hand. Accused A4 namely, Niranjan Kumar torn the shirt of
the complainant leading to loss of Rs. 1000/-.
3.1. The complainant further alleged through
complaint that at around 8:00 P.M., the detained protesters
were brought before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Begusarai at his residential office for remand after about eight
hours of the occurrence (registered as Town P.S. Case No.
221/2014), where the accused persons including petitioners
threatened protesters as not to disclose before the learned
C.J.M. about the alleged assault and injuries. Despite of
aforesaid threat, the detained protesters had shown their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
injuries to the learned C.J.M., who instructed for proper
treatment vide order dated 28.03.2014, but they were not
treated, despite of direction of the learned C.J.M., Begusarai.
They were only treated upon an application of jail doctor and
jail superintendent, only when the medical condition of Zafir
Khan, Rupak Kumar, Mukund Kumar, Sujit Kumar and Murari
Kumar deteriorated and a medical board was formed on
07.04.2014 for their treatment upon direction of learned
C.J.M. vide order dated 02.04.2014. The detained protesters
were also threatened with their life and false implication with
criminal case by the accused persons.
4. The list of date of events in the present complaint
proceeding can be summarized, as to how in lethargic and
mechanical manner cognizance was taken against the
petitioner(s) after about ten years of the alleged occurrence,
same is as under:
Date Particulars
14.04.2014 Complaint case No. 13373 of 2014 filed by the
complainant namely, Abhinav Kumar Akeka.
06.06.2014 Statement of complainant namely, Abhinav Kumar
Akela was recorded.
24.06.2014 Statement of complainant's witness namely,
Amrendra Kumar was recorded.
10.07.2014 Statement of complainant's witness namely, Zafir
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
Khan was recorded.
25.07.2014 Statement of complainant's witness namely, Anil
Kumar Anjan was recorded.
21.10.2014 Statement of complainant's witness namely,
Rupak Kumar was recorded.
22.11.2014 Statement of complainant's witness namely, Sujit
Kumar was recorded.
12.02.2014 Statement of complainant's witness namely,
Murari Kumar was recorded.
28.07.2016 Statement of complainant's witness namely,
Chandra Deo Verma was recorded.
22.12.2016 Statement of complainant's witness namely,
Mukund Kumar was recorded.
5. On 20.02.2017, a petition was filed on behalf of
the complainant, wherein it was prayed that medical report of
some witnesses of the complaint case was attached with the
records of FIR being Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 221 of
2014, which was pending before the court of Shri Pushpendra
Kumar Pandey, the then learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class,
at Begusarai, may be called for. The learned Magistrate
allowed the petition filed by the complainant and called for the
same from the court of Shri Pushpendra Kumar Pandey, the
then learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Begusarai. The
record of the complaint case was kept pending for want of
said medical report till 23.03.2018. Thereafter on
13.06.2018, a petition was filed along with a list of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
documents on behalf of the complainant and case was then
posted for hearing on the said petition.
6. The complaint case was then kept pending for
hearing from 13.06.2018 till 01.08.2018, and thereafter, the
complaint case was transferred from the court of learned
CJM, Begusarai to the court of Shri Ravi Ranjan, the then
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai for trial and disposal,
but the complainant remained absent and was not taken any
steps towards proceeding of the complaint case from
04.08.2018 till 19.04.2024. Subsequently, on 29.04.2024,
learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, through impugned order
dated 29.04.2024, ordered to take cognizance of the offences
punishable under Sections 166, 323, 504 and 506/34 of the
I.P.C. and issued summons to all the accused persons of the
complaint including both petitioners.
7. Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submitted that petitioner being the head of
the district police as Superintendent of Police, Begusarai,
falsely implicated with present case out of ulterior and oblique
motive, with malicious approach, while petitioners were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
discharging their official duty along with other police
personnels on the date of alleged occurrence.
8. It is submitted that the complaint is baseless and
concocted. Mr. Singh submitted that alleged occurrence is
said to have been committed on 28.03.2014, but the present
complaint was filed with an unexplained delay of 15 days i.e.
on 16.04.2014, clearly suggests that same was lodged as an
afterthought to counter the case, which was lodged on
28.03.2014, against the complainant and witnesses of the
complaint petition, as Begusarai Town P.S. Case No.
221/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 147,
149, 188, 353, 435, 332, 333, 427, 323 & 341 of the I.P.C.,
as the complainant and his associates blocked the road during
strike as to make strike successful and were engaged in
getting the shop closed forcibly and also found assaulting the
pedestrians, and when it was objected, scuffled with the police
personnel, where police personnels, used a mild force as it
was essentially required to check the occurrence.
9. It is further submitted by Mr. Singh that the
demonstration was not a peaceful protest rather it was a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
violent demonstration endangering the safety of common
people. No prior permission was taken by the complainant or
anyone for aforesaid demonstration, which was absolutely
prohibited under the Model Code of Conduct, already in vogue
due to "2014 general election". It is submitted that the
complainant and witnesses are interested persons being
accused and co-accused of Begusarai Town P.S. Case No.
221/2014.
10. It is further submitted by Mr. Singh that Section
197 of the Cr.P.C. provides a bar upon the court to take
cognizance in a case wherein it is alleged that the act done or
purported to be done in discharge of an official duty except
with the previous sanction, but same was completely ignored
by the learned trial court. It is pointed out that in view of
same, impugned cognizance order is without any foundation
and, as such, the impugned order is covered under the legal
maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby
that if foundation being removed, structure would fall
automatically.
11. While argument further, it is submitted by Mr.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
Singh that the injury report on which the learned trial court
has placed reliance, appears failed to appreciate that medical
of injured persons was conducted upon the report of ASI of
Town Police Station, Begusarai, where, upon the medical
examination of injured Zafir Khan, only two injuries were
noticed, one was pain in right hand and other was pain in
whole body and, therefore, allegation raised through
complaint that this petitioner (A-1) assaulted on his testicles
appears prima-facie false on its face, which was said only to
aggravate the allegation to settle the personal vengeance.
12. It is further submitted that upon medical
examination of Rupak Kumar only two complain was
explained before the doctor, which were pain in both hands
and pain in the whole body. The report was obtained on the
basis of oral complain of injured and, therefore, the malicious
approach and oblique motive, cannot be denied. It is also
submitted that learned trial court, while taking cognizance,
committed mistake by ignoring the fact that by the time the
medical board was constituted, the complainant and other
alleged injured persons had spent a considerable time in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
custody making the reasons of injury un-ascertainable, which
can be gathered with any prudence at least to initiate a
criminal prosecution like present against dedicated police
officers like petitioner, engaging herself to maintain law and
order in the district, while Model Code of Conduct was under
operation in view of General Election, 2014.
13. It is also submitted that complainant had a
political background and also found accused of Begusarai
Town P.S. Case No. 212/2014 instituted for the offences
punishable under Sections 188/153 of the I.P.C., section 126
of the Representation of People Act and provisions of Bihar
Loudspeaker and Control Act, 1955 and also of Begusarai
Town P.S. Case No. 213/2014 registered for the offences
under Sections144, 188, 353, 332, 333, 153 of the I.P.C.
Both these cases upon investigation found true against him
for which charge-sheet has already been submitted. It is
pointed out that the nature of accusation, as raised through
above two cases, suggests on its face that complainant is
habitual offender, breaches peace and thus by posing a
challenge to law and order enforcing agency/police.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
14. While concluding argument, Mr. Singh submitted
that the sword of prosecution hanging on the petitioner since
last ten years, where she was summoned by the court after
inordinate delay of ten years, which in itself may be the sole
ground to quash the present proceedings and, moreover, the
impugned order was passed by the second class Magistrate,
where entire enquiry witnesses was examined by learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, and the Magistrate who passed
the order not appears to be specially empowered by learned
CJM in view of section 190(2) of the Cr.P.C. as to take
cognizance against the petitioner, where the detailed
impugned cognizance order appears to be a mini trial, instead
of finding a prima-facie case because certain facts, which be
taken into consideration at the time of trial, was taken into
consideration for securing cognizance order.
15. In view of aforesaid submission, Mr. Singh
submitted that continuing present criminal proceeding before
the court below against both petitioners, who is the head of
Police Administration, being Superintendent of Police, an IPS
Officer and also as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
having unimpeachable service record would only amount to
abuse the process of court of law and, therefore, same be fit
to be set-aside/quashed in view of legal report of Hon'ble
Supreme Court as available through Neeharika
Infrastructure Private Limited Vs State of Maharashtra
& Others reported through (2021) 19 SCC 401 and D.T.
Virupakshappa Vs. C. Subash reported in (2015) 12
SCC 231.
16. Despite effective service of notice, opposite party
no. 2 failed to join the proceeding. Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey,
learned A.P.P. for the State is present.
17. It would be apposite to reproduce the para nos.
12.4 and 57 of the Neeharika Infrastructure Private
Limited Case (supra), which reads as under:-
12.4. In Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri)
426], it is observed and held by this Court that save in
exceptional cases where non-interference would result
in miscarriage of justice, the court and the judicial
process should not interfere at the stage of the
investigation of offence. It is further observed that in a
routine case where information of an offence or
offences has been lodged, investigation commenced,
search and seizure followed and suspects arrested, the
resort to the unusual procedure of oral applications and
oral appeals and interim stay order thereon would have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
the effect of interfering and staying the investigation of
offences by the investigating officer performing
statutory duty under CrPC.
"57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right
from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of
Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles
of law emerge:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to
investigate into cognizable offences;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into
the cognizable offences;
iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence
or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first
information report the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare
cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its
application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has
been formulated in the context of the death
penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping
the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs
of the State operate in two specific spheres of
activities. The inherent power of the court is,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
however, recognised to secure the ends of justice
or prevent the above of the process by Section 482
Cr. P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of justice,
the Court and the judicial process should not
interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court
do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court
to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and
details relating to the offence reported. Therefore,
when the investigation by the police is in progress,
the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to
complete the investigation. It would be premature
to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts
that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process
of law. During or after investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no
substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an
appropriate report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known
procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is very
wide, but conferment of wide power requires the
court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more
diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it
thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of
quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law,
more particularly the parameters laid down by this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and
Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash
the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for
quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused,
the court when it exercises the power under
Section 482 Cr. P.C., only has to consider whether
or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence and is not
required to consider on merits whether the
allegations make out a cognizable offence or not
and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the
FIR."
18. It would further be apposite to reproduce para 5,
6, 7, 8 & 9 of D.T. Virupakshappa case (supra), which
reads as under:
"5. The question, whether sanction is necessary or not,
may arise on any stage of the proceedings, and in a
given case, it may arise at the stage of inception as held
by this Court in Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand [Om
Prakash v. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 12 SCC 72 :
(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 472] . To quote: (SCC p. 94, para
41)
"41. The upshot of this discussion is that whether
sanction is necessary or not has to be decided from
stage to stage. This question may arise at any stage of
the proceeding. In a given case, it may arise at the
inception. There may be unassailable and unimpeachable
circumstances on record which may establish at the
outset that the police officer or public servant was acting
in performance of his official duty and is entitled to
protection given under Section 197 of the Code. It is not
possible for us to hold that in such a case, the court
cannot look into any documents produced by the
accused or the public servant concerned at the inception.
The nature of the complaint may have to be kept in
mind. It must be remembered that previous sanction is a
precondition for taking cognizance of the offence and,
therefore, there is no requirement that the accused must
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
wait till the charges are framed to raise this plea."
6. In the case before us, the allegation is that the
appellant exceeded in exercising his power during
investigation of a criminal case and assaulted the
respondent in order to extract some information with
regard to the death of one Sannamma, and in that
connection, the respondent was detained in the police
station for some time. Therefore, the alleged conduct
has an essential connection with the discharge of the
official duty. Under Section 197 CrPC, in case, the
government servant accused of an offence, which is
alleged to have been committed by him while acting or
purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, the
previous sanction is necessary.
7. The issue of "police excess" during investigation and
requirement of sanction for prosecution in that regard,
was also the subject-matter of State of Orissa v. Ganesh
Chandra Jew [State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew,
(2004) 8 SCC 40 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2104] , wherein, at
para 7, it has been held as follows: (SCC pp. 46-47)
"7. The protection given under Section 197 is to protect
responsible public servants against the institution of
possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences
alleged to have been committed by them while they are
acting or purporting to act as public servants. The policy
of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to
public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted
for anything done by them in the discharge of their
official duties without reasonable cause, and if sanction
is granted, to confer on the Government, if they choose
to exercise it, complete control of the prosecution. This
protection has certain limits and is available only when
the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably
connected with the discharge of his official duty and is
not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in
doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but
there is a reasonable connection between the act and
the performance of the official duty, the excess will not
be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of
the protection. The question is not as to the nature of
the offence such as whether the alleged offence
contained an element necessarily dependent upon the
offender being a public servant, but whether it was
committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act
as such in the discharge of his official capacity. Before
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
Section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the
official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to
have been committed by him while acting or purporting
to act in the discharge of his official duties. It is not the
duty which requires examination so much as the act,
because the official act can be performed both in the
discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of
it. The act must fall within the scope and range of the
official duties of the public servant concerned. It is the
quality of the act which is important and the protection
of this section is available if the act falls within the scope
and range of his official duty."
(emphasis supplied)
8. In Om Prakash [Om Prakash v. State of
Jharkhand, (2012) 12 SCC 72 : (2013) 3 SCC
(Cri) 472] , this Court, after referring to various
decisions, particularly pertaining to the police excess,
summed up the guidelines at para 32, which reads as
follows: (SCC p. 89)
"32. The true test as to whether a public servant was
acting or purporting to act in discharge of his duties
would be whether the act complained of was directly
connected with his official duties or it was done in the
discharge of his official duties or it was so integrally
connected with or attached to his office as to be
inseparable from it (K. Satwant Singh [K. Satwant Singh
v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 266 : 1960 Cri LJ
410] ). The protection given under Section 197 of the
Code has certain limits and is available only when the
alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably
connected with the discharge of his official duty and is
not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in
doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but
there is a reasonable connection between the act and
the performance of the official duty, the excess will not
be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of
the protection (Ganesh Chandra Jew [State of Orissa v.
Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40 : 2004 SCC
(Cri) 2104] ). If the above tests are applied to the facts
of the present case, the police must get protection given
under Section 197 of the Code because the acts
complained of are so integrally connected with or
attached to their office as to be inseparable from it. It is
not possible for us to come to a conclusion that the
protection granted under Section 197 of the Code is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
used by the police personnel in this case as a cloak for
killing the deceased in cold blood."
(emphasis supplied)
9. In our view, the above guidelines squarely apply in
the case of the appellant herein. Going by the factual
matrix, it is evident that the whole allegation is on police
excess in connection with the investigation of a criminal
case. The said offensive conduct is reasonably connected
with the performance of the official duty of the
appellant. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not
have taken cognizance of the case without the previous
sanction of the State Government. The High Court
missed this crucial point in the impugned order."
19. It would be further apposite to reproduce the
impugned cognizance order dated 29.04.2024, for better
understanding of the case, which reads as under:
"IN THE COURT OF MAYANK KUMAR PANDEY
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SECOND CLASS, BEGUSARAI
Complaint Case No. 13373(C) of 2014
Abhinav Kumar Akela and Ors. Vs. Harpreet Kaur & Others
Date of Order : 29.04.2024
Today this file is put up before the Court for order. The
complainant, Abhinav Kumar Akela, has lodged this
complaint against Harpreet Kaur and four other accused
persons. The Ld. CJM took cognizance of the offences
punishable under sections 166, 323, 325, 341, 342, 307,
427 and 389/34 of I.P.C, 1860 and makeover the same u/s
192 Crpc.and the case was later on transferred to this court
by Order No. 08/24 of the Ld. District & Sessions Judge for
further proceedings.
Case of the complainant
The story of the complainant is that a one-day
Begusarai Bandh was called for by the Aparadh Virodhi
Sangharsh Samiti on 28.03.2014 to protest against the
kidnapping of three children in Begusarai and killing of one
child Piyush post his kidnapping. The call for one day bandh
or strike was supported by the civil societies and business
organizations. The two district advocates' associations of
Begusarai had also given their support to the bandh and
kept themselves away from all kinds of legal work. The call
for strike was duly informed in writing by Suman Kumar, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
convenor of Aparadh Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti, to the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Begusarai and the news of strike was also
already published in various newspapers.
When the protesters were marching towards Power
House Chowk Begusarai, accused A2-DSP. Rajkishore
Singh, A3-Sadar SDO Satyaprakash Mishra and A4-Circle
Officer. Niranjan Kumar came along with armed forces and
took the complainant along with fellow protesters/witnesses
namely Amrendra Kumar, Zafir Khan, Anil Kumar Anjan,
Rupak Kumar, Chandradeo Verma, Sikandar Rai, Pushkar
Prasad Singh to the town thana. After half an hour, other
protesters Mukund Kumar, Sujeet Kumar and Murari Kumar
were also brought to the town thana.
At around 12 PM, accused A1-SP Begusarai, Harpreet
Kaur reached the town thana and started hurling abuses at
them. When the detained protesters stated that they were
only peacefully protesting against the crime and criminals,
accused A1, A2, A3, A4 and accused A5-Meghnath Singh
started abusing and beating them. Accused Al-Harpreet
Kaur beat up Zafir Khan and Rupak Kumar, who was
physically disabled, using police rod and inflicted numerous
blows on their back, buttock and legs. Subsequently,
accused Al Harpreet Kaur kicked the testicles of Zafir Khan
with her boots leading to bleeding from penis of Zafir Khan.
Accused A2-DSP Rajkishore Singh beat up Mukund Kumar
using his police rod leading to his hand fracture. All the
accused persons brutally assaulted the detained protesters.
Accused A-4 Niranjan Kumar tore down the shirt of the
complainant leading to loss of Rs. 1000.
At around 8 pm, the detained protesters brought before
the house of learned CJM for remand after 8 hours of
incident in PS Case No- Nagar 221/2014 and they had
threatened the protesters not to tell the Ld. CJM about the
injuries. The detained protesters showed their injuries to the
learned CJM and despite the instructions for proper
treatment vide order sheet dated 28-03-2014 of Ld.CJM
Begusarai, the injured protesters were not treated as per
directions of Ld. CJM. They were only treated upon an
application of jail doctor and jail superintendent when the
medical condition of Zafir Khan, Rupak Kumar, Mukund
Kumar, Sujit Kumar and Murari Kumar deteriorated and a
medical board was formed on 07.04.2014 for their
treatment only upon directions from the Ld.CJM vide order
dated 02-04-2014. The detained protesters were
threatened with their life and institution of false cases
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
against them by the accused persons.
Discussion of the Materials/ Evidence adduced
during inquiry:
The Judicial test which a Court ought to examine on the
point that whether a Summoning order is to be passed under
section 204 Cr.P.C, 1973 or a Dismissal order under Section
203 Cr.P.C, 1973 is to find out whether there is sufficient
ground for proceeding in the case or not.
The court examined the complainant on oath under
section 200 CrPC, 1973 and eight inquiry witnesses namely
IW-1 Amrendra Kumar, IW-2 Zafir Khan, IW-3 Anil Kumar
Anjan, IW-4 Rupak Kumar, IW-5 Sujit Kumar, IW-6 Murari
Kumar, IW-7 Chandrdev Verma and IW-8 Mukund Kumar
were examined by the court.
Upon perusal of the complaint petition, S/A of the
complainant and statement of the inquiry witnesses,
relevant order sheets of Ld. CJM Begusarai in Nagar
221/2014 following facts appear:
* The complainant in his S.A. supported the date, time
and place of incident. He has fully supported the allegations
made against the all accused persons in the complaint
petition.
* IW-1, Amrendra Kumar, said that he along with other
protesters were arrested by the police. The accused persons
hurled abuses at them and they were brutally beaten up and
assaulted by the accused persons in police custody. He has
also supported all the allegations made against the accused
persons in the complaint petition.
* IW-2, Zafir Khan, supported the story of the
complaint. He also stated that he was kicked on his testicles
by the accused A1-Harpreet Kaur, He also lost his
consciousness and fell down.
* IW-3, Anil Kumar Anjan, also supported the story of
the complaint. He stated that accused A5 -Meghnath Singh,
Nagar Thana munshi, slapped him incessantly leading to
internal injuries in his ears.
* IW-4, Rupak Kumar, IW-5, Sujeet Kumar, IW-6
Murari Kumar, IW-7 Chandradev Verma and IW-8 Mukund
Kumar also fully and without any significant contradiction
supported the story of the complaint.
The complainant in his SA and all the inquiry witnesses
in their depositions have supported the allegations made
against the accused persons. The court does not find any
substantial contradiction in their versions, nor is there any
hint of false or concocted story made up against the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
persons. On the contrary, in the FIR no 221/2014 dated 28-
03-2014 lodged by A-4 Niranjan Kumar against the
complainant and witnesses,it was alleged that only slight
and immediate force was used for arrest around 11 am but
the injury report by the medical board clearly highlights the
injuries on the arrested persons namely Zafir Khan, Rupak
Kumar, Mukund Kumar, Sujit Kumar and Murari Kumar
caused in the custody and during the period of arrest that
certain injuries are not simple and caused by hard and blunt
substance. Thus, in the present case there appears to be
more than prima-facie grounds available on the record to
proceed against all accused persons mentioned in the
complaint petition.
Why sanction to prosecute is not required in this
case?
The court is aware that the accused persons are police
officials and courts should be circumspect in summoning
public servants. Section 197 of the CrPC requires previous
sanction from the government to prosecute public servants.
However, where the acts of a public servant exceeds his
lawful authority within the confines the requirement of
previous sanction from the The Hon'ble Supreme Court and
Hon'ble Patna High Court have laid down numerous
judgment on this point. In a very recent judgment by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shadakshari v. State of
Karnataka, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 48, it has been held that
"this court has been consistent in holding that Section 197
CrPC does not extend its protective cover to every act or
omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted
to only those acts or omissions which are done by public
servants in the discharge of official duties." By no stretch of
imagination, inflicting injuries and torture on the arrested
persons be held as acts in the discharge of official duties.
Thus, in compliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the court
does not find any need for previous sanction of the
government in this case.
Also, in Jitendra Kumar v State of Bihar, (2019) 4 PLJR
1128, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashwini Kumar Singh
of Patna High Court, held that "taking the accused in police
custody and mercilessly assaulting him with hard and blunt
substance in police lock-up in the name of custodial
interrogation, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be
an act either in discharge of official duty or in purported
discharge of official duty."
Thus, upon perusal of complaint petition, S/A of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
complainant, statement of the inquiry witnesses, and the
case record, the court is of the opinion that there is sufficient
material available on record to proceed further as a prima
facie case is made out under sections 166, 323, 504 and
506/34 of I.P.C, 1860 to summon the accused persons
mentioned in the complaint petition.
Accordingly, complainant is directed to file necessary
requisites positively within seven days from today.
Thereafter, office is directed to issue summons against the
accused persons namely 1-Harpreet Kaur, 2-Rajkishore
Singh, 3- Satyaprakash Mishra, 4-Niranjan Kumar
and 5- Meghnath Singh.
Put up on 29-05-2024 after filing of requisites by the
complainant.
JM II
Begusarai"
20. Upon perusal of record and arguments as
canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it
appears that the occurrence took place on 28.03.2014, the
day on which the Model Code of Conduct was in operation,
issued by Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan,
Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001 through its Notification No.
437/6/1/2014-CC&BE dated 5th March 2014, with immediate
effect. Admittedly, the petitioner on the alleged date of
occurrence was the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai
having responsibility to maintain the law and order situation,
where complainant and its associates admittedly called for a
strike on the issue of law and order. In support of peaceful
march, as claimed by complainant, no permission was given
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
by the local administration as complaint suggest only
intimation. The complainant and his associates turns violent
during their protest and for that Begusarai Town P.S. Case
No. 221/2014 was lodged, where other complainant
witnesses are also arrayed as an accused. Admittedly this
complaint was filed after 15 days of the occurrence and also
after lodging of the aforesaid police case against complainant.
The complainant almost with similar accusation arrayed as an
accused in Begusarai Town P.S. Case Nos. 212/2014 and
213/2014. No doubt, the court is aware about the position of
law that at this stage the defence version of accused cannot
be looked into, but simultaneously, this Court is also aware
about the legal position that the documents, which is of
sterling in nature, cannot be ignored. Reference can be taken
from the legal report of Hon'ble Apex Court as available
through State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi
reported in AIR 2005 SC 359.
21. The petitioners and associate police officials in
view of Model Code of Conduct were duty bound to be more
vigilant to deal any unwarranted situation. The injury report,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
as discussed through impugned order, suggests only bodily
pain and pain in hand of injured Zafir Khan, prima-facie
negating the version of the complainant that he was assaulted
on his penis by petitioner causing bleeding therefrom. The
allegation, as raised, appears prima-facie with ulterior and
oblique motive in view of afore-discussed background which
was brought with malicious approach against the petitioner as
to counter the criminal case lodged against him by police, for
their violent protest on 28.03.2014.
22. Allegation admittedly raised in the background,
while petitioner and her associates police personnels were
discharging their official duty, and therefore, sanction for
prosecution was mandatorily required in view of section 197
of the Cr.P.C. Nonetheless to say that continuation of enquiry
for long ten years in complaint case in itself an eyebrow
raising event.
23. The nature of injury, as alleged through
complaint, prima-facie not suggesting that the police
personnels including the petitioners were exceed the limit
particularly in view of strike/demonstration when Model Code
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60841 of 2024 dt.16-04-2025
of Conduct was in practice due to General Election, 2014.
24. In view of aforesaid discussions, particularly by
taking a guiding note of Neeharika Enterprises case
(supra), and also of D.T. Virupakshappa case (supra),
[para-8], the impugned cognizance order dated 29.04.2024
passed in Complaint Case No. 13373(C) of 2014 qua
petitioners is hereby set-aside/quashed.
25. Accordingly, both above mentioned petitions
stand allowed.
26. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
learned trial court/concerned court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 20.03.2025
Uploading Date 16.04.2025
Transmission Date 16.04.2025
