Karnataka High Court
Rajeshwara Reddy vs Rakeshkumar on 25 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRL.P.NO.101257/2015
BETWEEN :
RAJESHWARA REDDY
S/O L.RAMA REDDY,
AGE : 35 YEARS,
OCC: RAILWAY TICKET COORDDINATOR,
R/O NO.18-37,
SANGANAKALLU ROAD,
GANDHINAGAR,
BALLARI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.G.KADADAKATTI, ADV.)
AND :
1. RAKESHKUMAR,
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,
SIPF/CIB/U.B.HUBBALLI.
2. RAMAKRISHNA D.
CONSTABLE NO.492,
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,
HUBBALLI.
3. ABDULWAHAB,
2
CONSTABLE NO.129,
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,
CIB/UBL, HUBBALLI.
4. JANARDHAN CHARI
S/O SREERAMULU ACHARI
R/O NALAGALLI,
NEAR MOHAMEDIA SCHOOL,
COWL BAZAR,
BALLARI.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD BENCH-580 011.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AJAY U.PATIL, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3.
SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R.5)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING THIS COURT TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.03.2015 PASSED IN
CRL.R.P.NO.194/2012 BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 341, 323, 342, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION
34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
: JUDGMENT :
The petitioner is impugning the order dated 10.03.2015 passed in Crl.R.P.No.194/2012 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Ballari ("the Revisional Cout" for short) dismissing the revision petition and confirming the order dated 03.08.2012 passed in C.C.No.1043/2011 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC Court at Ballari ("the Trial Court" for short) discharging the accused/ respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), by allowing application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.4 as informant lodged the first information with Railway Police on 06.10.2010 stating that he is the authorized sub-agent under one L.Rama Reddy. On 05.10.2010 at about 8.30 a.m. he was near the 4 reservation counter in a railway station, accused Nos.1 to 3 being the officials of railway protection force came to the informant and asked to show the tickets. When the informant informed that, as he is the sub-agent, entitled to book the ticket on behalf of the travelers, the accused have dragged the informant to Railway Protection Force Police Station, Ballari, assaulted with latees and kicked him with shoes. After assaulting for about 10-15 minutes, a criminal case was registered against him. One Rajeswarareddy i.e., the petitioner herein was also the authorized agent working like the informant. Since there was merciless attack on the informant and the petitioner, they have raised the concerned with various authorities. The informant sustained injuries. There was violation of human rights. Accordingly the complaints were lodged with the Chairman of Human Rights Commission, Bengaluru. Since a false case was registered against the informant and the petitioner, they were detained in custody illegally till 8.30 a.m., and they were 5 produced before the jurisdictional police. After their release from the custody, the informant took treatment in VIMS Hospital. The photographs were produced to show the high handed acts of respondent No.1 and 2 and filed the complaint requesting the railway police to register the case and to initiate legal action.
3. The first information was registered in Crime No.40/2010 against accused Nos.1 to 3/ respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was came to be filed for the above said offences. The learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered C.C.No.1043/2011. The accused have filed application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C seeking their discharge. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 03.08.2012. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing 6 Crl.R.P.No.194/2012 before the Revisional Court. The said revision petition was came to be dismissed vide order dated 10.03.2015.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash both the impugned orders and to direct the Trial Court to proceed against respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the above said offences.
5. Heard Sri S.G.Kadadakatti, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay U.Patil learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Praveen K.Uppar learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.5-State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the injured witness before the Trial Court. He has given his statement before the police. The informant had sustained injuries. The Investigating Officer, after due 7 investigation filed the charge sheet against respondent Nos.1 to 3.
7. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. But while considering the application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., it was held that there was no sanction obtained to prosecute accused Nos.1 to 3, therefore, they were discharged. Even the Revisional Court has not considered the contention of the petitioner and proceeded to confirm the order passed by the Trial Court, discharging accused Nos.1 to 3.
8. Learned counsel submitted that, admittedly respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the public servants. Their act of assaulting the informant and the petitioner is not in discharge of their duty. They have exceeded their limits and committed the offence. The informant and the petitioner were the authorized agents for purchasing and reselling of tickets in the railway platform. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had no authority to 8 commit the criminal offence. Under such circumstances, the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., is not at all required.
9. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Choudhaury Parveen Sultana Vs. State of West Bengal and another1 to contend that when the public servant exceeds his limit and the act alleged is not under the discharge of the official duty, sanction under Section 197 Crl.P.C., is not at all required. The learned counsel submitted that, the Trial Court as well as Revisional Court have not applied their minds and proceeded to pass the impugned order without any basis. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition in the interest of justice.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 (accused Nos.1 to 3 before the Trial Court) opposing the petition submitted that, the informant who lodged the first information and the State have 1 (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 398 9 not challenged the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. It is only the petitioner who is neither the informant nor the injured, preferred this criminal petition challenging the impugned order. He further submitted that, the petitioner was not authorized to purchase the railway tickets in the counter and to resell it to the general public. Even though it is contended that they are the sub-agent, there is absolutely no materials to substantiate the same. It amounts to black marketing the railway tickets. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 being the officials of the railway protection force are required to act against such black marketing. Therefore, it was only under discharge of their official duty, the petitioner was taken into custody and was produced before the Trial Court, after registering the criminal case against him. This act of respondent Nos.1 to 3, is clearly in discharge of their duty and sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., is very much necessary. When there is no sanction obtained to prosecute respondent No.1 to 3, 10 the Trial Court could not have taken cognizance for the offence alleged.
11. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in D.Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain2 to contend that only if the act committed is outside the duty of the public servant no sanction is necessary. When the act alleged is reasonably related to the discharge of the duty, a sanction is must. When there is no sanction to prosecute the accused who are admittedly the public servants, the criminal proceedings initiated in such cases is required to be quashed. However, the Trial Court by allowing the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., discharged the accused. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and also by the Revisional Court. Hence, the orders do not call for any interference by this Court. 2 2020 Cri.L.J.3745 11
12. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.5-State submitted that, after investigation the charge sheet was came to be filed, wound certificate of the informant was also produced as part of the charge sheet. However, the Trial Court proceeded to discharge the accused by holding that the sanction as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., is not produced before the Court. The State has not challenged the said order of discharge. Under such circumstances, he prays to pass an appropriate order.
13. Respondent No.4 being the informant remained unrepresented even after service of notice.
14. Perused the materials on record.
15. The point that would arise for consideration of this Court is as follows:
"Whether the impugned order dated 03.08.2012 passed by the Trial Court on application filed under Section 239 of 12 Cr.P.C in C.C.No.1043/2011, which confirmed in by the Revisional Court by order dated 10.03.2015 passed in Crl.R.P.No.194/2012 is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C?"
16. My answer t the above points is in the 'Negative' for the following:
: REASONS :
17. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he was the sub-agent purchasing and selling the railway tickets in the railway platform and he was taken into custody by respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the officials of railway protection force, registered a criminal case and produced before the magistrate. After releasing from the custody, respondent No.4 as informant lodged the first information and set the law into motion.
18. I have to consider as to whether the offences alleged against respondent Nos.1 to 3 could be under colour of their duty as officials of Railway 13 Protection Force or not. The Hon'ble Apex Court in D.Devaraja (supra) has held in paragraph Nos.73 and 79 as under:
73. To decide whether sanction is necessary, the test is whether the act is totally unconnected with official duty or whether there is a reasonable connection with the official duty. In the case of an act of a policeman or any other public servant unconnected with the official duty there can be no question of sanction. However, if the act alleged against a policeman is reasonably connected with discharge of his official duty, it does not matter if the policeman has exceeded the scope of his powers and/or acted beyond the four corners of law.
79. Significantly, the High Court has by its judgment and order observed "it is well recognized principle of law that sanction is a legal requirement which empowers the Court to take cognizance so far as the public servant is concerned. If at all the sanction is absolute requirement, if takes cognizance it becomes illegal therefore an order too overcome any illegality the duty of the magistrate is that even at any subsequent stages if the sanction 14 is raised it is the duty of the Magistrate to consider".
(emphasis supplied)
19. Therefore, the position of law is very well settled and in order to decide, whether the sanction is necessary or not in a given case, it has to be considered as to whether the act complained is connected to the official duty of the accused or whether it is totally unconnected with such official duty. If there is reasonable connection between the act complained and the official duty, the sanction must be obtained to prosecute such public servant.
20. In the present case, admittedly respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the public servants as they are working as officials in railway protection force. They were discharging their duties in the railway platform at the time of incident. Even though it is contended that the informant and the petitioner were the authorized sub- agents to purchase and to resell the tickets in railway platform, no such authorization is produced nor it was 15 brought to the notice of this Court. Admittedly a criminal case was registered against the informant and the petitioner by respondent Nos.1 to 3 for committing the offence on the railway platform i.e, purchasing the tickets and reselling it in black. Admittedly, the informant and the petitioner were produced before the learned Magistrate after apprehending in the criminal case that was registered against them by respondent Nos.1 to 3. If these facts and circumstances are considered, in the light of the requirement of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.Devaraja (supra), it is clear that respondent Nos.1 to 3 were discharging their official duty at the time of incident. The act complained is reasonably relatable to the official duty, it cannot be said that the act complained is totally unconnected to the official duty. Therefore, the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is very much necessary to prosecute accused Nos.1 to 3. 16
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in Choudhaury (supra) to contend that, the sanction is not at all necessary to prosecute respondent Nos.1 to 3. I have gone through the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the said case, the accused being the police officials alleged to have involved in extraction and criminal intimidation. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that extraction and criminal intimidation on the part of the police officials is definitely not in discharge of their duties and same cannot be reasonably related to the official duty of a police officer. Under such circumstances, it was held that the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., was not necessary. The facts and circumstances in the said case are not at all applicable to facts and circumstances of the present case.
22. The discussion held above discloses that respondent Nos.1 to 3 being the public servants, have 17 said to have committed the offence while discharging their official duty. Under such circumstances, the sanction was required to prosecute the accused. Admittedly, no sanction was obtained to prosecute respondent Nos.1 to 3. Therefore the prosecution is bad in law.
23. The Trial Court and the Revisional Court taking into consideration these facts and circumstances rightly discharged the accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same and hence I answer the above point in the negative and accordingly the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE EM