Karnataka High Court
Dhanalakshmi vs State By on 2 June, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
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
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
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 5 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 6 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. 1 AIR 2020 SC 3292 7 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 8 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