Karnataka High Court
D P Dhanaraj vs Shri G K Satish on 20 December, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2079 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
D.P. DHANARAJ
S/O. PUTTEGOWDA D.C.
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: CPI
MALAVALLI RURAL CIRCLE
MALAVALLI TALUK
R/O: POLICE QUARTERS
MALAVALLI - 571 430
DIST: MANDYA
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: M.B. RAVI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by NANDINI B G
Location: high
court of SHRI. G.K. SATISH
karnataka S/O. KARIGOWDA
AGE: 48 YEARS
R/O: JAYANAGARA LAYOUT
K.R. PETE TOWN
DIST: MANDYA - 571 426
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
22.01.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
KRISHNARAJAPETE IN PCR.NO.126/2014 THEREBY TAKING
COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 166, 221, 323, 504, 506 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC AND FURTHER ORDERING TO REGISTER A
CRIMINAL CASE IN C.C.NO.34/2015 AND ISSUE OF SUMMONS IN SO
FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED IN THE
ABOVE CASE.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 17/12/2024 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner being accused No.1 in CC No.34 of 2015
(PCR No.126 of 2014) on the file of the learned Civil Judge and
JMFC, Krishnarajapete, is seeking to quash the criminal
proceedings initiated against him for the offences punishable
under Sections 166, 221, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section
34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent as
complainant filed PCR No.126 of 2014 against the petitioner
and another alleging commission of the offences under Sections
114, 166, 167, 168, 221, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC. It is
alleged by the complainant that the petitioner - accused No.1
being the Sub Inspector of Police has misused his authority,
abused the complainant in filthy language and criminally
intimidated by showing the rifle, holding the collar of the
complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioner by high
handed acts and misusing his authority as Sub Inspector of
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
Police registered several complaints making false and frivolous
allegations. Several instances of misuse of power by the
petitioner as SHO of KR Pete Rural Police Station is alleged by
the complainant in the private complaint to constitute the
offences as stated above and requested the learned Magistrate
to take cognizance of the offences. The Trial Court recorded
the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses.
After being satisfied with the allegations made in the complaint,
proceeded to pass the order dated 22.01.2015 forming the
opinion that there are sufficient materials to proceed against
the accused. It is also held that even though the petitioner is a
Police Officer and the public servant, sanction under Section
197 of Cr.P.C. is not necessary, as the act complained of, was
not under discharge of his official duty. Hence, the learned
Magistrate directed to register the criminal case for the
offences under Sections 166, 221, 323, 504 and 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner -
accused No.1 is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal
proceedings.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
3. Heard Sri M B Ravikumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Sharath S Gowda, learned counsel for the
respondent. Perused the materials on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
admittedly the petitioner is the public servant working as Sub
Inspector of Police. At the time of filing the complaint, he was
discharging his duty at K R Pete Rural Police Station.
Respondent is the mischief monger and several cases are
registered against him. Even after the petitioner transferred
from the said Police Station, several cases were registered by
the respondent. Even the proceeding under Section 107 of
Cr.P.C was initiated. There are rivalries to the respondent in
the village and several cases were registered against him as
well. The allegations made by the respondent that the rivalries
of the respondent are the relatives of this petitioner is false and
baseless. The petitioner has not shown partisan attitude
against the respondent. Only to wreck vengeance, the
respondent has filed the false complaint making false
allegations.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
5. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the
petitioner is a public servant and sanction to prosecute him is
required in view of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. But no such sanction
was obtained. In spite of that, the learned Magistrate
proceeded to take cognizance of the offences without any basis.
Hence, it is a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings and
accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.
6. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the
following decisions in support of his contention that without
legal sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner could
not have been prosecuted:
(i) D Devaraj Vs Owais Sabeer Hussain1
(ii) Matajog Dubey Vs H C Bari2
(iii) Pukhraj Vs State of Rajasthan & another3
(iv) Amrik Singh Vs State of Pepsu4
(v) P Arulswami Vs State of Madras5
(vi) B Saha & Others Vs M S Kochar6
1
(2020) 7 SCC 695
2
AIR 1956 SCC 44
3
(1973) 2 SCC 701
4
AIR 1955 SCC 309
5
AIR (1967) SCC 776
6
(1979) 4 SCC 177
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
(vii) Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur Vs State of
Mysore7
(viii) Satyavir Singh Rathi Vs CBI8
(ix) Sankaran Mohitra Vs Sadhana Das & another9
(x) Devinder Singh & Others Vs State of Punjab
through CBI10
(xi) State of Orissa Vs Ganesh Chadra Jew11
(xii) D T Virupakshappa Vs C Subhash12
(xiii) Dhanaraj D P Vs Kalaiah13
(xiv) Amod Kumar Kanth Vs Association of victim of
uphaar Tragedy & another14
(xv) Amal Kumar jha Vs State of Chhattisgarh &
another15
(xvi) B Ramesh Vs K Shankar & Others16
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
opposing the petition submitted that even though the petitioner
was working as Sub Inspector of Police at K R Pete Town Police
7
AIR 1963 SCC 849
8
(2011) 6 SCC 1
9
(2006) 4 SCC 584
10
(2016) 12 SCC 87
11
(2004) 8 SCC 40
12
(2015) 12 SCC 231
13
Crl.P.1777/2023 DD 10.07.2024
14
2023 SCC Online SC 578
15
(2016) 6 SCC 734
16
(1984) SCC Online Kar 13
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
Station, he had shown partisan attitude having ill-will against
the respondent. The petitioner was illegally into sand mining
business with the help of his relatives in the village. The
respondent has complained about the acts of the petitioner to
the officers of Department of Mines and Minerals. A criminal
complaint was registered against the petitioner in that regard.
Therefore, the petitioner is wrecking vengeance against the
respondent.
8. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has
set up his relatives to quarrel with the respondent and even
when the respondent approached the Police Station against the
highhanded acts of the relatives of the petitioner, no FIR was
being registered. The complainant was compelled to approach
the higher officers for registration of FIR. Even after registering
the FIR at the instance of the higher officers, the petitioner was
not investigating into such matters, nor he was arresting the
culprits.
9. Learned Counsel further submitted that on the date
of incident, when the respondent had gone to the Police Station
requesting the petitioner to take necessary action on his
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
complaint, the petitioner had taken out his rifle and aimed at
the respondent. He held his shirt collar and abused him in
filthy language. He also criminally intimidated to take away his
life. These acts of the petitioner are not in discharge of the
official duty of a Police Officer, but the same were criminal acts
committed by the petitioner as an accused. Under such
circumstances, the private complaint came to be filed against
the petitioner and others. The Trial Court recorded the sworn
statement of the respondent and his witnesses and passed a
reasoned order for taking cognizance of the offence and for
registration of criminal case.
10. Learned counsel submitted that even though the
petitioner is a public servant, the acts alleged were not in
discharge of his official duty, but it was clear misuse and abuse
of the authority as a Police Inspector. Under such
circumstances, the petitioner cannot take shelter under Section
197 of Cr.P.C. Looking to the nature of allegations, Section
197 of Cr.P.C. is not at all applicable to the petitioner and no
sanction is necessary. He placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Yadav Vs Niranjan
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
Kumar Upadhyay & Ors.17 and contended that even the Trial
Court considered the position of law regarding requirement of
sanction to prosecute the petitioner and categorically held that
such sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C is not necessary as
assaulting, abusing in filthy language and giving life threat to
the complainant do not fall under discharge of official duty.
Therefore, the order taking cognizance is a well reasoned order
and there are no reasons to quash the criminal proceedings.
Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
11. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner has made out any
grounds to allow the petition and to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated against him?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the
following:
17
2024 SCC Online SC 3726
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
REASONS
12. The respondent as complainant filed the private
complaint in PCR No.126 of 2014 against accused Nos.1 and 2.
He complained of committing the offences under Sections 114,
166, 167, 168, 221, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC. It is
specifically contended by the respondent that the petitioner
while working as Sub Inspector of Police at K R Pete Rural
Police Station was into illegal sand mining in Hemavathi river
through his relatives. The respondent has complained about
the illegal acts of the petitioner to the Geologist, Department of
Mines and Minerals. A criminal case was registered in that
regard. Therefore, it is said that the petitioner was having ill-
will against the complainant and he instigated his relatives to
pick up quarrel with the respondent. Admittedly, several
complaints were registered against the respondent and
similarly several complaints were registered on the basis of the
information given by the respondent.
13. It is contended by the respondent in the private
complaint that the petitioner was having ill-will against the
respondent, was wrecking vengeance against him. It is also
stated that when the respondent visited the Police Station, the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
petitioner abused him in filthy language and threatened to
shoot at him with the rifle. He has caught hold of his collar
and criminally intimidated to assault him.
14. The sworn statement of the respondent was
recorded by the Trial Court as CW1 and he also examined CW2,
a witness who speaks about the criminal acts committed by the
petitioner. Based on the allegations made in the private
complaint and the statement of CWs.1 and 2 made in the sworn
statement, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences by
passing the order dated 22.01.2015.
15. Now it is the contention of the petitioner that he
has not committed any of the offences as alleged nor he has
misused his authority as Sub Inspector of Police. Secondly,
since no sanction is obtained as required under Section 197 of
Cr.P.C., the criminal proceedings is to be quashed.
16. When the respondent has made serous allegations
against the petitioner for having committed the offences under
Sections 166, 221, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and his contention
is supported by CW2, who has also corroborated the say of the
respondent, I find strong prima facie materials to constitute the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
offences. Simply because, the petitioner contends that the
respondent due to ill-will is making false allegations, the same
cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings at the
initial stage.
17. Secondly, the contention taken by the petitioner is
that, no sanction as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is
obtained, even though the petitioner is a public servant. It is
not in dispute that the petitioner is a public servant working as
Sub Inspector of Police. The allegations made against him by
the respondent is that, he was into illegal sand mining in
Hemavathi river through his relatives and since the respondent
has filed the complaint against him with the Department of
Mines and Minerals, the petitioner abused him in filthy language
and assaulted him and also held out life threat by using the
rifle. Admittedly, several cases and counter cases are
registered against both the petitioner and respondent for
having committed various offences, but the allegations made
by the respondent against the petitioner that when he visited
the Police Station, the petitioner abused him in filthy language,
held his shirt collar and threatened to shoot him with the rifle,
do not constitute discharge of official duty by the petitioner.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
But on the other hand, it is the highhanded act of any person
for that matter.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om
Prakash Yadav (supra). The Court has considered the legal
position regarding requirement of the protection that is given to
the public servant for sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
and referring to its various earlier decisions summarized the
position of law highlighting the object behind enactment of
Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to protect a reasonable public servant
against initiation of possibly false and vexatious criminal
proceedings and held in paragraph 65 (x) (xi) and (xii) and
paragraph 66 as under:
"65. Thus, the legal position that emerges
from a conspectus of all the decisions referred to
above is that it is not possible to carve out one
universal rule that can be uniformly applied to the
multivarious facts and circumstances in the context
of which the protection under Section 197 CrPC is
sought for. Any attempt to lay down such a
homogenous standard would create unnecessary
rigidity as regards the scope of application of this
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
provision. In this context, the position of law may be
summarized as under: -
xxx.......
(x) There cannot be any universal rule to
determine whether there is a reasonable connection
between the act done and the official duty, nor is it
possible to lay down such a rule. However, a "safe
and sure test" would be to consider if the omission or
neglect on the part of the public servant to commit
the act complained of would have made him
answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official
duty. If the answer to this question is in the
affirmative, the protection under Section 197 CrPC
can be granted since there was every connection
with the act complained of and the official duty of
the public servant.
(xi) The provision must not be abused by
public servants to camouflage the commission of a
crime under the supposed color of public office. The
benefit of the provision must not be extended to
public officials who try to take undue advantage of
their position and misuse the authority vested in
them for committing acts which are otherwise not
permitted in law. In such circumstances, the acts
committed must be considered dehors the duties
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
which a public servant is required to discharge or
perform.
(xii) On an application of the tests as
aforesaid, if on facts, it is prima facie found that the
act or omission for which the accused has been
charged has a reasonable connection with the
discharge of his official duty, the applicability of
Section 197 CrPC cannot be denied.
66. At the cost of repetition, we say that the
position of law on the application of Section 197
CrPC is clear - that it must be decided based on the
peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. This
Court has held in a legion of decisions that any
misuse or abuse of powers by a public servant to do
something that is impermissible in law like
threatening to provide a tutored statement or trying
to obtain signatures on a blank sheet of paper;
causing the illegal detention of an accused; engaging
in a criminal conspiracy to create false or fabricated
documents; conducting a search with the sole object
of harassing and threatening individuals, amongst
others, cannot fall under the protective umbrella of
Section 197 CrPC."
19. Thus, the position of law is very well settled that
even though the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to some of the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
examples to state the act of the public servant do not fall under
the protective umbrella of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The list is not
exhaustive but it is only illustrative.
20. The allegation that the petitioner being the Sub
Inspector of Police in K R Pete Rural Police Station, abused the
respondent in filthy language, held his shirt and criminally
intimidated to shoot with rifle, cannot be termed as under the
color of discharge of his official duty. If the act complained is
true, it is nothing but highhanded acts of the petitioner for
which he cannot seek a shelter under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings cannot be
quashed at this stage. The petitioner is at liberty to take the
defence before the Trial Court during trial. But he is not
entitled for any relief in this petition.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on several decisions as referred to above. Even
though, the Court has refereed to Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and
delivered the judgments on facts of each case, none of the
cases will enure to the benefit of the petitioner to justify the
acts complained of. Basically the defence taken by the
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53150
CRL.P No. 2079 of 2021
petitioner is that, he has not committed any such acts and a
false complaint came to be filed. Whether there is truth in the
allegations made by the respondent or not is to be found out by
the Trial Court after full-fledged trial and therefore, the petition
is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer the above point
in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.G. UMA) JUDGE *bgn/-
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 47