Yellappa vs Nijaguneppa and Others

Budihal R.B., J.—This is a petition filed by the petitioner-accused No. 2 seeking to quash the proceedings.

Brief facts leading to filing of this petition as narrated in the petition that respondent No. 1 has filed a false private complaint against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 324 and 504 of IPC alleging that the petitioner came to the Police Station in order to collect forms to get the medical certificate of his son. In fact, on 04.12.2008 respondent No. 1 came to the Police Station and objected and quarrelled with the petitioner stating that how the petitioner has released the accused persons on bail in the complaint filed by his son. In fact, the accused in that case was released on bail by the JMFC, Kalaghatagi. When the respondent No. 1 started galata in the Police Station abusing the Police Authorities, petitioner lodged a complaint and produced before the Magistrate in C.C. No. 29/2009 and he was released on bail on 05.12.2008. Thereafter, a false case came to be filed by the respondent No. 1 without obtaining any sanction though there is an allegation that the petitioner was on duty at the time of alleged offence. It is further mentioned by the petitioner herein that the trial Court without considering the evidence of respondent No. 1 and without comparing the same with the complaint passed the orders to frame charge for the offences punishable under Section 324 and 504 of I.P.C. which is challenged herein.

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 2 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 2-State. Counsel for the petitioner made submission that when the respondent No. 1-complainant had been to the Police Station, he himself made galata against accused No. 2 in the Police Station when accused No. 2 was on duty and because of this reason complaint was also lodged against the respondent No. 1. Learned counsel also made submission that accused No. 2 was serving as a Public Servant and in the discharge of his official duties the alleged act said to have been committed. Therefore, it requires prior sanction of the competent authority under the provisions of Sec. 197 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, he made submission that, without there being such prior sanction the learned Magistrate Court ought not to have ordered for framing of the charge against the petitioner herein.

In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision reported in D.T. Virupakshappa Vs. C. Subash . Hence, he submitted to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings as sought for in this petition.

Per contra learned Govt. Pleader during the course of his arguments made submission that the order passed by the learned Magistrate for framing of the charge is in accordance with law and no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in passing the such order. Hence, he submitted and supported the order impugned under this petition and ultimately submitted to dismiss the petition.

I have perused the averments of FIR, Complaint and also the oral evidence P.W.1 tendered before the trial Court on 04.08.2014. I have also perused the order sheet of the trial Court and the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision.

Looking to these materials on record the Court has to ascertain whether the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 herein is a false complaint and it is abuse of process of the Court and whether prior sanction is necessary under the provisions of Sec. 197 of Cr.P.C. to proceed against the petitioner-accused No. 2.

Looking to the complaint averments, i.e., private complaint filed u/S 200 Cr.P.C. it is stated by the complainant that he had been to the hospital for getting the medical certificate in respect of the injuries sustained by his son in the prior incident and as the Doctors have told him that he has to submit the format which he has to obtain from the Police Station and then they will consider about the issue of the medical certificate. In order to get the said forms he had been to the Police Station of the present petitioner and at that time the petitioner herein along with his superior officer herein arrayed as accused No. 1 in the said complaint when he asked for the said form then the present petitioner abused him in filthy language, assaulted him and kicked him and caused injuries on the ear portion. Because of that, he was having bleeding injury in the ear. Immediately he got giddiness in the Police Station. In the evening when he was taken before the concerned Magistrate and when he was specifically asked by the learned Magistrate whether there is any ill treatment by the Police, he specifically stated that he was assaulted by the present petitioner as well as another accused, superior officer of accused No. 2. The learned Magistrate ordered for medical examination of the respondent No. 1. But, inspite of such order he was not taken to the hospital immediately but he was taken back to the jail and on the next day he was taken before the Doctor. Even at that time also the hospital authorities told that concerned Doctor is not in station and he has to come after two days.

According to the complaint averments and the oral evidence tendered before the Magistrate Court as he was having severe pain because of the assault made on him he was not able to immediately go to the Doctor and on 08.12.2008 he went and got treatment. In this regard he has produced documents.

Perusing the complaint averments as well as his deposition tendered before the concerned Magistrate Court there is consistency and he has narrated about what has happened to him. Now with regard to the contention of the learned counsel that as the accused No. 2 was on duty when the alleged incident said to have been taken place and without obtaining prior sanction under Sec. 197 of Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate ought not to have ordered for framing of the charge is concerned, I have gone through the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the said reported decision, 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 about some information with regard to the death of one Sannamma and in connection the respondent was detained in the Police station for some time. It was also observed by their Lordships in paragraph No. 7 of the said reported decision that, therefore the alleged conduct has an essential connection with the discharge of official duty. Under Sec. 197 of Cr.P.C. in case the Government Servant accused of offences which is alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, previous sanction is necessary.

But, coming to the case on hand, it is not the case of the petitioner-accused No. 2 herein that respondent No. 1 was secured by him to the Police Station in connection with the investigation of the earlier incident of his son and at that time the respondent No. 1-complainant behaved like that and he committed offence.

Looking to the averments in the private complaint as well as the oral evidence of P.W.1-complainant, he had been to the Police Station to get the format for getting the medical certificate from the Doctor in respect of the injuries sustained by his son in the prior incident and at that time he has been assaulted by the accused No. 2 who is the petitioner herein.

Looking to these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate taken the said decision also into consideration, but comes to the conclusion that it is not made applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of these materials, I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate to frame charge against petitioner No. 2.

Looking to the materials on record there are no grounds for this Court to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate and to quash the proceedings. Hence, petition is hereby dismissed.

Whatever observations made by this Court in the body of the order is only for the purpose of disposal of this petition. The trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations while proceeding with the said case further.