B. Venkat Reddy, Hyd vs P.P., Hyd Ano
2022 Latest Caselaw 918 Tel

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

               CRL.R.C.Nos.1894 and 2594 of 2014

COMMON ORDER:

      These two Crl.R.C.Nos.1894 and 2594 of 2014 have been

filed by A-1 and A-2 respectively against the orders, dated

02.04.2014,   passed   by   the   Metropolitan   Sessions   Judge,

Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, in Crl.M.P.Nos.40 of 2014 and 61 of 2014

in S.C.No.456 of 2013, whereby the learned Sessions Judge,

dismissed both the petitions seeking to discharge them from the

offences alleged against them in the said S.C.No.456 of 2013.


      The facts, in brief, are that the 2nd respondent/complainant

filed a private complaint against the revision petitioners/A-1 and

A-2 stating that he is running an Electrical Shop under the name

and style of "Sairam Electricals" at Sagar Road, Ibrahimpatnam

Village. On 14.03.2004 at about 9.00 P.M., the 2nd respondent was

returning back to his house in his Maruthi Van and when he

reached near Tirumala Nursing Home, Ibrahimpatnam, three

persons came from his backside on a Hero Honda Motor Cycle

and dashed against his Maruthi Van on its right side, on account

of which, the person, who was riding the Hero Honda Motor

Cycle has received simple injuries to his arms. It is further stated

that when the 2nd respondent stopped his Maruthi Van, the said

three riders of the Hero Honda Motor Cycle disclosed their

identity as Police Constables and abused the 2nd respondent as if

he was at fault and an altercation took place between them and

that the Police Constables threatened the 2nd respondent with dire

consequences of killing him in an encounter and then the 2nd

respondent left the place out of fear towards his house.

Thereafter, some Police Constables came to the house of the 2nd

respondent and forcibly took him to the police station,

Ibrahimpatnam, in spite of the requests made by the wife of the

2nd respondent and neighbours and after reaching the Police

Station, both the revision petitioners/A-1 and A-2, who were

working as Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police,

removed his clothes and beat him with hands and shoes brutally,

as a result of which, the 2nd respondent received injuries all over

his body and bleeding injury on the bottom of left ear and that his

baniyan was totally drenched with blood and thereafter the

revision petitioners/A-1 and A-2 asked the 2nd respondent to

clean the blood and wash the baniyan and ultimately freed him at

about 1.00 A.M. midnight on 15.03.2004. It is also stated that after

reaching the house, the 2nd respondent fell unconscious and he

was taken to Chaitanya Nursing Home, wherein he was

examined by Dr.Sadasiva Reddy and on account of seriousness of

injury, he was shifted to Aware Super Speciality Hospital,

Bairamalguda, Hyderabad and Dr.Srimannarayana attended on

him and sutured the lacerated injury over the left ear and that he

was discharged on 18.03.2004 and the treatment was recorded as

M.L.C. Register No.235 and that the 2nd respondent incurred

Rs.8,618/- towards hospital bill and medicines. Since the senior

police officials have not taken the complaint even though the

Media flashed the incident, the 2nd respondent filed a private

complaint against the revision petitioners/A-1 and A-2. After

recording the sworn statements of the 2nd respondent, his wife

and the doctors, who treated the 2nd respondent, the learned

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, has taken

cognizance of the said private complaint against the revision

petitioners/A-1 and A-2 for the offences punishable under

Sections 2 (d) and 30 of the Human Rights Act and Sections 324

and 342 of the I.P.C., and numbered as P.R.C.No.23 of 2004 and

on committal, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad-cum-

I-Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy, Designated Human

Rights Court, numbered the same as S.C.No.456 of 2013.

During the pendency of the aforesaid Sessions Case, the

revision petitioners/A-1 and A-2 filed two separate petitions

seeking to discharge them for the offences alleged against them in

said Sessions Case. Vide separate orders, dated 02.04.2014, the

learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar,

had dismissed the said petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the

present Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by the revision

petitioners/A-1 and A-2.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and

perused the material available on record.

Sri P.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of Sri M.Venkat Ram Reddy, learned Counsel for the

revision petitioners submits that since there is no prior sanction of

the Government, under Section 197 Cr.P.C., to prosecute the

revision petitioners, taking cognizance of the private complaint

by the learned Magistrate itself is not proper and therefore, no

charge can be framed against the revision petitioiners/A-1 and A-

2. In support of the said contention he relied on the judgments of

the Apex Court in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari1; Pukhraj v.

State of Rajasthan and another2; Shankaran Moitra v. Sadhna

Das and another3 and D.Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain4. It

is also submitted that prior to the private complaint, the 2nd

respondent-de facto complainant did not complain that the

revision petitioners beat him. It is further submitted that in the

discharge application itself, the revision petitioners have taken a

ground that there is no prior sanction of the Government before

taking cognizance of the case and since the allegations levelled

against the revision petitioners are made when they were

discharging their official duty, the sanction is necessary. It is

AIR 1956 SC 44

(1973) 2 SCC 701

(2006) 4 SCC 584

(2020) 7 SCC 695

further submitted that even though two crimes were pending

against the 2nd respondent, the Court below gave a finding that

no case is pending against the 2nd respondent and as such, the

said finding is contrary to the facts on record. It is also

submitted that the prayer of the 2nd respondent in his private

complaint is only for the offences under Sections 324 and 342 of

I.P.C., but at the time of taking cognizance, Section 2 (d) of

Human Rights Act was referred. It is further submitted that the

committal order should contain proper and valid reasons as to

why the case is being committed to the Sessions Court, but on a

reading of the committal order, it is clear that except stating the

allegations, there is nothing indicates as to why the case was

committed to Sessions Court. It is also submitted that the Human

Rights Act provides State Human Rights Commission to deal

with the situations, where the alleged violations of Human Rights

have taken place. Without resorting the remedies available under

the Human Rights Act, the 2nd respondent- de facto complainant

made a complaint before the Magistrate and without appreciating

the said fact, the learned Magistrate took cognizance, as if the

offence has taken place by violating the Human Rights and

committed the case to the Sessions Court, who in turn, without

appreciating the same, dismissed the discharge application,

though the revision petitioners have raised the above ground in

their discharge application. It is further submitted that the act

done by a public servant in good faith is protected and exempted

them for prosecution and since there is no sanction, the revisions

have to be allowed.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st

respondent-State contended that the offence committed by the

revision petitioners is not while discharging their duties as public

servants and, therefore, prior sanction under Section 197 is not

necessary. He further contended that whether sanction was

necessary or not, had to be decided keeping in mind the nature of

the complaint, which, in this case was of physical torture and ill-

treatment of the 2nd respondent-complainant, which could never

be in exercise of official duty. He further contended that in any

case whether sanction was necessary or not would have to be

determined during the course of trial having regard to the

materials brought on record by the respective parties. He further

contended that the complaint should not be nipped in the bud on

the ground of want of sanction.

In R.S.Naik v. A.R.Antule5, the Apex Court held that "It is

well settled that existence of a valid sanction is a prerequisite for

taking cognizance by Courts. It is incumbent on the Courts

before taking cognizance that they enquire whether there is a

valid sanction to prosecute the public servant for the offences

alleged to have been committed by him as public servant while

discharging his duties."

In R.R.Chari v. State of U.P.6 the Apex Court held that "a

trial without a valid sanction where one is necessary has been

held to be a trial without jurisdiction. Any case instituted

without a prior sanction must fail. It is a manifest defect in the

prosecution rendering the entire proceeding void ab initio".

Since the revision petitioners are public servants, valid

sanction is required to prosecute them. A perusal of the record

AIR 1984 SC 684

AIR 1962 SC 1573

would show that no prior sanction has been obtained before

taking cognizance. In the absence of any such sanction, the trial

Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. Hence,

the proceedings before the trial Court were void ab initio being

without jurisdiction.

Apart from that, it is the case of the revision petitioners/A-

1 and A-2 that what all happened are in the course of discharge of

their official duty. Further, the record reveals that two cases

were pending against the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant

filed by third parties vide Crime No.46 of 2004, Ibrahimpatnam

Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 337 and 327 of I.P.C., and Crime No. 47 of 2004,

Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, registered for the offence

punishable under Section 353 of I.P.C. Both the crimes were

registered on 14.03.2004 at 22.00 hours. The private complaint

was filed on 15.04.2004. Admittedly, the revision petitioners/A-

1 and A-2 are police officials and at the time of alleged incident

they were working at Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. Therefore,

the acts done by the revision petitioners are in connection with

discharge of their official duty.

For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the facts

and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is

clear that the act done by the revision petitioners regarding

which, a criminal prosecution/proceedings have been initiated

against them was intrinsically connected with discharge of their

official and statutory duty. The protection under Section 197 of

Cr.P.C. from prosecution is very much available to the revision

petitioners/A-1 and A-2 as they are public servants and they

could not have been prosecuted without prior sanction. The

Investigating Officer committed legal error in submitting the

charge sheet against the revision petitioners without obtaining

prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. from the authority

concerned and the learned Magistrate has also committed legal

error in taking cognizance of the aforesaid charge sheet in the

absence of sanction order under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The trial

Court, without proper appreciation of material available on

record, has mechanically passed the impugned order, which is per

se illegal. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the orders

passed by the trial Court warrant interference of this Court.

Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed,

setting aside the orders, dated 02.04.2014, passed by the

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, in

Crl.M.P.Nos.40 of 2014 and 61 of 2014 in S.C.No.456 of 2013 and

the revision petitioners have been discharged for the offences

alleged against them in S.C.No.456 of 2013.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

25.02.2022 Gsn