Decided on December 01,1972



- (1.) 1. The petitioner is a member of the Indian Police Service and the Union Government allotted his services to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Petitioner was in charge of Anantapur Rural Circle as Assistant Superintndent of Police from 1-8-1971 to 14-10-1971. On 15-10-71 the second respondent herein filed a complaint, P.R.C.No, 19/71 before the judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapur, against the petitioner and three others under Secs. 166,202,330,365,367,368 and 324 read with Sees. 109, 114 and 34 IPC. In the complaint it was stated that on 10-10-1971 some timeafter mldnight accused 1 to 4 along with some police constables came tothe house of the complainant in Dorigallu village. The petitioner herein told him that ha wanted to search his house saying that he received some Information that some of the accused concerned in a case of murder of one Tirupala Reddy (known as Kothapalli Murder case) were suspected to be In his house. The complainant denied any connection with them or that such persons were In his house. The Petitioner and others thereupon, searched the entire house, though no search warrants were shown to the complainant or served on him. Thereafter, the petitioner asked the complainant to get into the jeep and go with him to the Police Station. According to the complainant the jeep was taken towards the village called Thimmarayanipalyam and stopped at some distance from that village. The house of one Chinua Bali was searched in the village. Thereafter the jeep proceeded to Anantapurand reached the Taluk Police Station at about 6.30 or 7 AM. in the police Station the petitioner insulted the complainant In filthy vulgar language. He also threatened the complainant to give a statement confessing that the absconding accused were harboured by him. As the complainant refused to do so, he beat the complainant with a stick on the face. The blow fell on the left cheek and the second blow fell on his left palm and wrist when he protested and raised his left hand to ward it off. A little later the petitioner compelled him to issue a false statement to the effect that three of the accused concerned in Kothapalli murder case were In his custody and threatened him that he would beat him again If he did not sign the statement. As the complainant had already received injuries, he signed the statement though he knew the contents were false. Thus the petitioner exhorted a false confession by causing hurt to him. The petitioner left the police station and the complainant was wrongly confined therein. In the complaint it was also mentioned that the petitioner had caused a false case to be fabricated by the Sub-Inspector of Singanamala Police Station against the complainant alleging that the complainant assaulted the Sub-Inspector when he was interrogating him in Singanamala Police Station and that he sustained an injury while running away. The complainant stated that he was never taken to Singanamala Police Station.
(2.) The Magistrate raised a query as to the maintainability or the complaint without the sanction of the Government under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. In answer to the query the learned Counsel for the Complainant cited decisions. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and of his witnesses, pronounced the order dated 15-10-1971 taking on file the complaint under Secs. 365,367,324,330 I.P.C. against A-1, the petitioner herein, and under certain other Sections against A-1 to A- 4. He observed in his order that the protection of Sec 197 Crl.P.C. was not attracted. As observed in the decision in Ramanath V. Saligram............... (1) AIR 1967 All. 519 cited before him. the necessity for the sanction has to be determined only in the course of the progress of the case. Hence, he found there were grounds to take the case on file and issued process against the Petitioner and others requiring their attendance in Court on 30-10-1971.
(3.) The Petitioner, thereupon, filed W. P. No. 4241/71 In this Court praying inter alia that this court may quash the proceedings in P. R.C. 19 / 71 and the complaint d/ 15-10-1971 and also to issue a writ of Prohibition restraining the Magistrate from proceeding further in the matter. Krishna Rao J., who heard the petitioner and the respondents dismissed the Writ Petition by his order d/16-11-1971. He held that the jurisdiction of the court to proceed with the complaint emanates frorh the allegations made in the complaint and not from what is alleged by the accused. He was of the view that on a reading of the complaint it did not disclose any allegation to warrant the sanction of the Government. It did not appear from the allegatlons in the complaint that the injuries were caused in the discharge of the duty of the Police Officers. It is not a case where the Police Officers had to use force to prevent a person from escaping. He also observed that as observed in NagaraJ v. State of Mysore (2) A I R 1964, S C 269, that the occasion for the court to consider whether the complaint could be filed without the sanction of the government would be when at any later stage of the proceedings it appears to the Court that the action of the Police Officer complained of appears to come within the provisions of Secs. 127 and 128 Crl. P. C. and that this can be either when the accused appears before the Court and makes such a suggestion or when evidence or circumstances prima facie show it. He, therefore, held that the view taken by the Magjstrate was correct; in any event he was not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Art 226 of the Constitution.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.