Karnataka High Court
Sri P S Gachinakatti vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 29 November, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 977 OF 2015
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1003 OF 2015,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1009 OF 2015,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1161 OF 2015,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1215 OF 2015,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4305 OF 2015,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4306 OF 2015,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4307 OF 2015,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4308 OF 2015
IN CRL.P NO 977 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
SRI P S GACHINAKATTI
S/O SRI SAVALIGEPPA
RETIRED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BANGALORE CITY POLICE
NO.256, VASANT VALLABHANAGAR
NEAR CITY ENGINEERING COLLEGE
Digitally signed by B
K
BANGALORE-560 061.
MAHENDRAKUMAR ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI S. VIJAYA SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
KARNATAKA
SRI G.K. BEKAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH (SCB)
"A" WING, 3RD FLOOR, RAJAJI BHAVAN
BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 090.
2. THE REGISTRAR
CITY CIVIL COURT,
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
OLD POST OFFICE ROAD,
BANGALORE CITY.
3. ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION
BANGALORE, VAKEELARA BHAVANA,
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
4. A.P. RANGANATHA
S/O PADMANATHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.123, AGARE, TATAGUNI POST,
BENGALURU SOUTH-560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG AND
SRI KIRAN S. JAWALI, SPP A/W
SRI V.S. VINAYAKA, HCGP FOR R-2;
SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2015 PASSED BY THE XVII-
ACMM, BANGALORE AND PLEASED TO QUASH ALL THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.348/2015 IN R.C.NO.9(S) AND
R.C.NO.10(S)/2013 OF CBI/SCB/CHENNAI, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE XVII-ACMM BANGALORE (SPL.COURT FOR CBI
CASES), BANGALORE.
IN CRL.P NO 1003 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
1. JAGADISH
S/O H B SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
OCC: POLICE INSPECTOR
BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
R/AT NO.B-4 POLICE OFFICERS QUARTERS
VASANTHNAGARA, BENGALURU-560 052.
2. M D SIDDESH
S/O M DEVENDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
OCC: POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
GANDINAGARA POLICE STATION
R/AT POLICE QUARTERS, BALEHONNUR
CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 112.
3. K R RAJU
S/O RUDHRE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
OCC: POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
BALEHONNUR POLICE STATION
R/AT POLICE QUARTERS, BALEHONNUR
CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 222.
4. M K DEVAIAH
S/O LATE M N KARRYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
OCC: HAED CONSTABLE-159
1ST BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT NO. 15, 3RD BLOCK
HEAD CONSTABLE QUARTERS
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.
5. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE-472
HALASURGATE POLICE STATION
R/AT NO.19, 1ST MAIN
C CROSS, BYATARAYANAPURA
BENGALURU-560 085.
6. M M SOMANNA
S/O LATE M D MEDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
OCC: ARSI (THE HC-68)
1ST BATALLION KSRP
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
PRESENTLY AT 6TH BATTALION
KSRP, GULBARGA
R/AT DOOR NO.22, BLOCK NO.2
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.
7. RAMAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE-RETIRED
NO.70, 1ST BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT RAGHU APARTMENTS
OPP: LAKSHMI VENKATARAMANA TEMPLE
VENKATAPURA, BENGALURU-560 034.
8. P MARIYAPPA
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
OCC:HEAD CONSTABLE
NO. 157, 1ST BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT NO.66, 11TH BLOCK
HC QUARTERS, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 034.
9. A MUNINARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE APPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
OCC:RETIRED HEAD CONSTABLE
KSRP, R/AT NO.47, KAUDENAHALLI
NEAR RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 016.
10. H S SHIVARAJU
S/O LATE S SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC:POLICE CONSTABLE-431
1ST BATALLION, KSRP
R/AT HESARUGATTA VILLAGE & POST,
BEHIND GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL
BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 092.
11. S MARISWAMY
S/O NANJUNDAIAH
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE-14
1ST BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT NO.13, "B" BLOCK
SUVARANASANGEERNA
KSRP POLICE QUARTERS
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.
12. M ASHOK
S/O MALLESHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
OCC:POLICE CONSTABLE-187
1ST BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT GANGARAJANAHALLI
MAYAGANAHALLI POST
RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-560 096.
13. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O PONAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCC:POLICE CONSTABLE-207
1ST BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT NO.23, 7TH BLOCK
BADRASANGEERNA
KORAMANAGLA, BENGALURU-560 034.
14. K B UDAYA KUMAR
S/O LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCC:POLICE CONSTABLE 633
1ST BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT NO.471, BLOCK-41
KSRP QUARTERS, MAACHENAHALLI
NIDIGE POST, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 217.
15. R NARASIMHAGOULI
S/O LATE RANOJI GOULI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC:POLICE CONSTABLE-712
1ST BALLALLION, KSRP
R/AT NO. 194, Q BLOCK
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
TUNGASANGEERNA
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.
16. K B SOMANNA
S/O BASAVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE-617
1ST BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT KESARAMADU VILLAGE & POST
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-571 464.
17. SHIVAMALLAIAH
S/O BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE
HALSURGATE POLICE STATION
R/AT NO. F-4, BLOCK NO.1
ANANDA RAO POLICE QUARTERS
BENGALURU-560 009.
18. Y N BOMMALINGE GOWDA
S/O NINGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
OCC: RETIRED ARSI
3RD BATTALION KSRP
(THEN HC-136, 3RD BATTALION, KSRP)
R/AT DOOR NO.96/5, 2ND MAIN
2ND CROSS, 2ND FLOOR, D GROUP LAYOUT,
ANDHRA HALL MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 091.
19. K M PUTTARAJU
S/O LATE MANDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE-117
3RD BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT NO.496, 53 BLOCK
PWD QUARTERS, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 034.
20. RACHANAIK, S/O RAMNAIK
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
OCC:HEAD CONSTABLE-75
3RD BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT NO.150, M-BLOCK
TUNGA SANKEERA
KSRP POLICE QUARTERS
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.
21. G GOVINDA NAIK
S/O LATE GAVIYA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE 55
3RD BATTALLION KSRP
R/AT DOOR NO.148, BLOCK NO.13
HUDCO QUARTERS
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034.
22. M RANGANATHA
S/O LATE MUTHULINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE
OOD, 3RD BATTALION
R/AT DOOR NO.58, 4TH CROSS
I MAIN AD BLOCK, SRIRAMPURA
BENGALURU-560 051.
23. K V CHANDREGOWDA
S/O N V VEERABHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC:HEAD CONSTABLE
OOD, 3RD BATTALION
KSRP, R/AT DOOR NO. 35
V D EXTENSION, 4TH CROSS
K R PURAM, BENGALURU-560 051.
24. H NAGARAJU
S/O HUCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE-63
3RD BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT DOOR NO. 467, BLOCK NO. 50
PWD QUARTERS, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 034.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
25. R MAHADEVAIAH
S/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE-89
3RD BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT DOOR NO. 51, BLOCK NO. 2ND BLOCK
TYGARAJANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 028.
26. R GOVINDA REDDY
S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE-81
3RD BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT DOOR NO. 37
BRAMAPUTRA COMPLEX
BLOCK NO.4, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 034.
27. S NARAYANAPPA
S/O SANNARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 149
3RD BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT DOOR NO. 106
4TH CROSS, E BLOCK
TUNKA COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034.
28. S E SHIVAKUMAR
S/O ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 389
3RD BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT NO. 231, T BLOCK,
TUNKA SANKEERNA, KSRP QUARTERS
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034.
29. MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETIRED SUB-INSPECTOR
3RD BATTALION, KSRP
BENGALURU (THEN ARSI,
3RD BATTALION KSRP
R/AT DOOR NO. 90
PRAKASH REDDY LAYOUT
OPP: IHMR, HULIMANGALA
JIGNI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT - 570 105.
30. ASHWATHANARAYANA
S/O N NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
OCC:HEAD CONSTABLE NO. 2
3RD BATTALLION, KSRP
R/AT NO. 52, PALGUNA, 5TH BLOCK
KSRP POLICE QUARTERS
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.
31. K. BALAKRISHNA
S/O LATE A.B.KRISHNACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO.148,
3RD BATALLION, KSRP,
R/AT. DOOR NO.207, 18TH BLOCK,
HUDCO KSRP POLICE QUARTERS,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 034.
32. V. RAMACHANDRA
S/O VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO.165,
3RD BATALLION, KSRP,
R/AT. DOOR NO.257, 22ND BLOCK,
HUDCO, KSRP POLICE QUARTERS,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU 560 034.
33. M. GOVINDARAJU
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO.184,
3RD BATALLION, KSRP
R/AT. DOOR NO.13/8, VALMIKI NAGARA,
1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN, MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 026.
34. R. RAJAPPA
S/O LATE R.T. RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE NO.131, 3RD BATALLION,
KSRP, R/AT. DOOR NO.128,
TUMKA SANKEERANA KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU 560 034.
35. V. BAYYAPPA
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCC:HEAD CONSTABLE OOD,
3RD BATTALLION KSRP,
R/AT. DOOR NO.82/7
AKSHAYA NILAYA, S.G PALAYA,
C.V. RAMANAGAR POST,
BENGALURU 560 093.
36. B.S. KARAJOLLA
S/O LATE SIDDARAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE OOD,
3RD BATALLION, KSRP, R/AT. DOOR NO.3,
S-2, TUMKA COMKPLEX,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 034.
37. D.S. GOVARDHANA RAO
S/O LATE SUBBANARASHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE-432,
3RD BATTALION, KSRP, R/AT. DOOR NO.5,
SOMESHWARA TEMPLE STREET,
HALASURU, BENGALURU CITY 560 008.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
38. D.MALLAPPA, S/O DEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE-579,
3RD BATTALION, KSRP,
R/AT. HOUSE NO.3/12,
26 HUDCO QUARTERS,
KSRP, KORMANGALA,
BENGALURU 560 034.
39. G.S. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE 577,
3RD BATTALLION, KSRP,
R/AT. DOOR NO.2729, 24TH BLOCK,
HUDCO QUARTERS, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU 560 034.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S VIJAYA SHANKAR SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI R. VENKATESH AND SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI (P1)
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, CHENNAI,
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CBI, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE REGISTRAR
CITY CIVIL COURT,
BENGALURU CITY.
3. K.N.SUBBA REDDY,
PRESIDENT, ADVOCATE ASSOCIATION
BANGALORE.
(R-2 AND R-3 ARE AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 19.3.2015)
....RESPONDENTS
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG
SRI. KIRAN S JAWALI SPP A/W
SRI. V.S. VINAYAKA HCGP FOR R-2;
SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.K. VENKATA REDDY ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF
PROCESS DATED.05.01.2015 PASSED BY THE XVII-ACMM,
BANGALORE CITY IN C.C.NO.348/2015, IN SO FAR AS
PETRITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 2 TO 15 AND 17 TO 41 ARE
CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN CRL.P NO.1009 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
MR. RAVIKANTHEGOWDA
S/O BESAGARAHALLI RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
CENTRAL DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY
R/AT NO.450, 5TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS
DOLLAR'S COLONY, R.M.V. EXTENSION
BANGALORE
PRESENTYL WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BELGAUM RURAL DISTRICT
BELGAUM-590 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S. VIJAYA SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH (SCB)
'A' WING, 3RD FLOOR, RAJAJI BHAVAN
BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 090
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR).
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
2. THE REGISTRAR
CITY CIVIL COURT
BANGALORE.
3. PRESIDENT
BANGALORE ADVOCATE'S BAR ASSOCIATION,
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE.
(R-2 AND R-3 AMENDED VIDE COURT
ORDER DATED 09/03/2015)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG
SRI. KIRAN S JAWALI SPP A/W
SRI. V.S. VINAYAKA, HCGP FOR R-2;
SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED IN C.C.NO.397/2015 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE
XVII-ACMM (SPL COURT FOR CBI CASES), BANGALORE CITY,
WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF R.C.NO.9(S)/2013 AND
R.C.NO.10(S)/2013 ON THE FILE OF CBI/SCB/CHENNAI, AND
ALSO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2015 IN TAKING
COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF PROCESS AS AN ABUSE OF
PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC.
IN CRL.P.NO.1161 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
MR. G.R. RAMESH
S/O. RANGASHAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY,
RESIDING AT NO.1854, 5TH "A" MAIN,
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
R.P.C. LAY-OUT,
BANGALORE-560 018.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S. VIJAYA SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH (SCB),
"A" WING, 3RD FLOOR, RAJAJI BHAVAN,
BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 090
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR).
2. THE REGISTRAR
CITY CIVIL COURT,
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE PRESIDENT
ADVOCATES ASSOCIATON,
BEHIND CAUVERY BHAVAN,
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE-560 009.
4. A.P. RANGANATHA
S/O PADMANATHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.123, AGARA TATAGUNI POST,
BENGALURU SOUTH-560 082.
(R-4 AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 27.08.2019
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
V/O DATED 27.08.2019 NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH
SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI. AMAR COOREA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
INITIATED IN C.C.NO.334/2015 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE XVII
COURT OF C.B.I ACMM (SPL.COURT FOR CBI CASES)
BANGALORE CITY, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF
R.C.NO.9(S)/2013 AND R.C.10(S)/2013 ON THE FILE OF
CBI/SCB/CHENNAI, AND ALSO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
05.01.2015 IN TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF PROCESS
AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC AND ETC.
IN CRL.P NO 1215 OF 2015:
BETWEEN
MR.RAVIKANTHEGOWDA
S/O BESAGARAHALLI RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
CENTRAL DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY,
RESIDING AT NO.450, 5TH MAIN,
8TH CROSS, DOLLAR'S COLONY,
R.M.V. EXTENSION, BANGALORE,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
BELAGAVI RURAL DISTRICT,
BELAGAVI 577 450.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S. VIJAYA SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH (SCB),
"A" WING, 3RD FLOOR,
RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR,
CHENNAI-600 090.
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
2. THE REGISTRAR
CITY CIVIL COURT
BANGALORE-560 009.
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
3. THE PRESIDENT,
ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION,
BEHIND CAUVERY BHAVAN,
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE-560 009.
4. A.P.RANGANATHA
S/O PADMANABHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.123, AGARA TATAGUNI POST,
BENGALURU SOUTH, BANGALORE-560 082.
(R-4 AMMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED
27.08.2019)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
V/O DATED 27.08.2019 NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH
SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI. R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED IN C.C.NO.248/2015 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE
XVII-ACMM (SPECIAL COURT FOR C.B.I. CASES), BANGALORE
CITY, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF R.C.NO.9(S)/2013 AND
R.C.10(S)/2013 ON THE FILE OF CBI/SCB/ CHENNAI, AND
ALSO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2015 IN TAKING
COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF PROCESS AS AN ABUSE OF
PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC.
IN CRL.P NO 4305 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI P SIDDARAMU
S/O SRI PITTAIAH RAMANA,
HEAD CONSTABLE-87, 4TH BN. KSRP,
KORMANAGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
2. SRI A RAME GOWDA
S/O LATE ANKE GOWDA,
HEAD CONSTABLE-19, 4TH BN.D.KSRP,
BENGALURU-560 034.
3. SRI D A MUDRI
S/O LATE ANNABHAT MUDRI,
HEAD CONSTABLE-134, 4TH BN. "HQ" KSRP,
BENGALURU-560 034.
4. SRI P V SHABNIS
S/O LATE VENKATA RAO,
HEAD CONSTABLE-143, 4TH BN. "A" KSRP,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.
5. SRI K C RAVISHANKAR
S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAPPA,
HEAD CONSTABLE-123, 4TH BN. 'HQ' KSRP,
BENGALURU-560 034.
6. SRI B H MURTHY
S/O LATE J.M.HANUMANTHAPPA,
HEAD CONSTABLE-102, 4TH BN.'HQ' KSRP,
BENGALURU-560 034.
7. SRI HUCCHAMASTAI
S/O LATE MANCHAIAH,
HEAD CONSTABLE-40, 4TH BN.KSRP,
BENGALURU-560 034.
8. SRI K RANGAIAH S/O MEDIYAPPA,
HEAD CONSTABLE-07, 4TH BN. KSRP,
BENGALURU-560 034.
9. SRI M H NADAF
S/O SRI HUSSAIN SAHIB,
POLICE CONSTABLE-457, 4TH BN."F" KSRP,
BENGALURU-560 034.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S. VIJAYA SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
SRI. G.K. BEKAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH (SCB)
"A" WING 3RD FLOOR, RAJAJI BHAVAN,
BESANT NAGA, CHENNAI-600 090.
2. THE REGISTRAR
CITY CIVIL COURT BENGALURU,
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
OLD POST OFFICE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION BENGALURU
"VAKEELARA BHAVANA",
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPESETED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG;
SRI. KIRAN S JAWALI, SPP A/W
SRI V.S. VINAYAKA, HCGP FOR R-2;
SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 5.1.2015 HON'BLE COURT OF THE XVII
A.C.M.M., BANGALORE, TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING
PROCESS IN C.C.NO.397/2015 CONCERNING R.C.NO.9(S) AND
R.C.NO.10(S)/2013 OF CBI/SCB/CHENNAI AT ANNEXURE-D
AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO QUASH ALL THE PROCEEDINGS
PENDING BEFORE THE SAID HON'BLE COURT OF THE XVII
A.C.M.M., BANGALORE (SPL. COURT FOR CBI CASES) AT
ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
IN CRL.P NO 4306 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE SRI VENKATRAMANA,
RETIRED SUB INSPECTOR, (THEN ARSI)
3RD BATTALION, K.S.R.P. BENGALURU,
R/O DOOR NO.90, PRAKASH REDDY LAYOUT,
OPP: IHMR, HULIMANGALA, JIGNI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TK., BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT-560 105.
2. SRI ASHWATHNARAYANA
S/O LATE SRI NARASIMAIAH,
HEAD CONSTABLE-02, 3RD BATTALION, KSRP,
DOOR NO.52, PALGUNA, 5TH BLOCK,
KSRP POLICE QUARTERS, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-34.
3. SRI K BALAKRISHNA
S/O LATE A.B.KRISHNACHARI,
HEAD CONSTABLE-148, 3RD BATTALION, KSRP,
R/O DOOR NO.207, 18TH BLOCK, HUDCO KSRP QTRS.,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.
4. SRI V RAMACHANDRA
S/O SRI VENKATAPPA,
HEAD CONSTABLE-165,
3RD BATTALION, KSRP, BENGALURU,
R/O DOOR NO.257, 22ND BLOCK,
HUDCO POLICE QUARTERS, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-34.
5. SRI.M.GOVINDARAJU
S/O LATE SRI MUNIYAPPA,
HEAD CONSTABLE-184, 3RD BATTALION, KSRP,
R/O DOOR NO.13/8, VALMIKI NAGARA,
I CROSS, 2ND MAIN, MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU-26.
6. SRI R.RAJAPPA
S/O LATE SRI R.T.RANGASWAMY,
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
HEAD CONSTABLE-131, 3RD BATTALION, KSRP,
DOOR NO.128, TUMKA SANKEERANA,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-34.
7. SRI.V.BAYYAPPA,
S/O SRI HANUMANTHAPPA,
HEAD CONSTABLE, OOD, 3RD BATTALION, KSRP,
R/O DOOR NO.82/7, AKSHAYA NILAYA,
SG PALAYA, C.V. RAMANAGAR PO
BENGALURU-93.
8. SRI B.S. KARAJOLLA
S/O LATE SRI SIDDARAMAPPA,
HEAD CONSTABLE, OOD, 3RD BATTALION, KSRP,
D.NO.3, S-2 BLOCK, TUMKA COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-34.
9. SRI.D.S. GOVARDHANA RAO,
S/O LATE SRI SUBBANARASHIMAIAH,
POLICE CONSTABLE 432, 3RD BATTALION, KSRP,
R/O DOOR NO.5, SOMESHWARA TEMPLE STREET,
HALASURU, BENGALURU-560 008.
10. SRI D. MALLAPPA
S/O SRI DEVAIAH,
POLICE CONSTABLE-579, 3RD BATTALION KSRP,
HOUSE NO.3/12, 26 HUDCO QUARTERS, KSRP,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-34.
11. SRI.G.S. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE SRI RAMAPPA,
POLICE CONSTABLE-577, 3RD BATTALION, KSRP,
R/O DOOR NO.279, 24TH BLOCK HUDCO QUARTERS,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S. VIJAYA SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. G.K. BEKAL, ADVOCATE)
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
AND:
1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
SPECIAL CRIME BRANCE (SCB)
"A" WING, 3RD FLOOR, RAJAJI BHAVAN,
BESANT NAGAR,
CHENNAI-600 090.
2. THE REGISTRAR
CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU,
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
OLD POST OFFICE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION BENGALURU
"VAKEELARA BHAVANA",
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG;
SRI. KIRAN S JAWALI, SPP A/W
SRI V.S. VINAYAKA, HCGP FOR R-2;
SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. KIRAN J, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 5.1.2015 PASSED BY THE XVII A.C.M.M.,
BANGALORE, TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING PROCESS IN
C.C.NO.334/2015, CONCERNING R.C.NO.9(S) AND
R.C.NO.10(S)/2013 OF CBI/SCB/CHENNAI AT ANNEXURE-D
AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO QUASH ALL THE PROCEEDINGS
PENDING BEFORE THE SAID HON'BLE COURT OF THE XVII
A.C.M.M., BANGALORE (SPL. COURT FOR CBI CASES) AND ETC.
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
IN CRL.P NO 4307 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
SRI N G SHASTRI
S/O SRI GOVINDA,
POLICE CONSTABLE-701,
1ST BATTALION KSRP,
BENGALURU, NOW RETIRED AND
RESIDING AT NO.41, INDIRANAGAR JOPADPATTI,
KULAPADI ROAD, BORIVILLI EAST,
MUMBAI-400 066.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S. VIJAYA SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. G.K. BEKAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH (SCB),
"A" WING 3RD FOOR, RAJAJI BHAVAN,
BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 090.
2. THE REGISTRAR
CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU,
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
OLD POST OFFICE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION BENGALURU
"VAKEELARA BHAVANA"
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AGG;
SRI. KIRAN S JAWALI, SPP A/W
SRI V.S. VINAYAKA, HCGP FOR R-2;
SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. KIRAN J, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 5.1.2015 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF
THE XVII A.C.M.M., AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO QUASH ALL
THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.348/2015 IN R.C.NO.9(S) AND
R.C.NO.10(S)/2013 OF CBI/SCB/CHENNAI, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE HON'BLE COURT VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
IN CRL.P NO 4308 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ASHOK KOTTI
S/O SRI CHANNAMULLAPPA,
P.C.1052 (OLD NO.11154),
BAGALKOT TOWN POLICE STATION,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587 101.
2. M.K. DEVAIAH
S/O LATE M N KAARYAPPA,
HEAD CONSTABLE-159, I BATTALION,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
BENGALURU-34.
3. SRI RAMAKRISHNA
S/O SRI GIRIYAPPA,
HEAD CONSTABLE 472,
HALASURGATE P.S.
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. SRI M M SOMANNA
S/O LATE M D MEDAPPA,
ARSI (THE THEN HC 68, I BATTALION,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
BENGALURU, NOW TRANSFERRED TO 6TH BATTALION,
KSRP, GULBARGA-585 101.
5. SRI RAMAPPA
S/O LATE VENKETASWAMY,
HEAD CONSTABLE-RETIRED
(THEN H.C.70, I BATTALION
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
BENGALURU-34.
6. SRI MARIYAPPA
S/O SRI PUTTAIAH,
HEAD CONSTABLE 157,
I BATTALION, KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
BENGALURU-560 034.
7. SRI A MUNINARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE APPAIAH,
HEAD CONSTABLE-RETIRED
(THEN H.C. 162, I BATTALION,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
BENGALURU-560 025.
8. SRI H.S. SHIVARAJU
S/O LATE S SHIVANNA,
POLICE CONSTABLE-431,
I BATTALION, KSRP,
BENGALURU-560 025.
9. SRI S MARISWAMY
S/O SRI NANJUDAIAH,
POLICE CONSTABLE-14,
I BATTALION, KSRP,
BENGALURU-560 025.
10. SRI M ASHOK
S/O SRI MALLESHAIAH,
POLICE CONSTABLE-187,
I BATTALION, KSRP,
BENGALURU-560 025.
11. SRI RAMAKRISHNA
S/O SRI PONNAPPA,
POLICE CONSTABLE-207,
I BATTALION, KSRP,
BENGALURU-560 025.
12. SRI K B UDAYA KUMAR
S/O LATE SRI BASAPPA,
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
POLICE CONSTABLE -633,
I BATTALION, KSRP,
BENGALURU-560 025.
13. SRI N.G. SHASTRI
S/O SRI GOVINDA,
POLICE CONSTABLE-701,
I BATTALION, KSRP,
BENGALURU-560 025.
14. SRI R NARASHING GOWLI
S/O LATE SRI RANOJI GOULI,
POLICE CONSTABLE-712,
I BATTALION KSRP,
BENGALURU-560 025.
15. SRI K.B. SOMANNA
S/O SRI BASAVALINGAPPA,
POLICE CONSTABLE-617,
I BATTALION, KSRP,
BENGALURU-560 025.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S. VIJAYA SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. G.K. BEKAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH (SCB),
"A" WING 3RD FLOOR, RAJAJI BHAVAN,
BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 090.
2. THE REGISTRAR
CITY CIVIL COURT BENGALURU,
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
OLD POST OFFICE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION BENGALURU
"VAKEELARA BHAVANA"
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG;
SRI. KIRAN S JAWALI, SPP A/W
SRI. V.S. VINAYAKA, HCGP FOR R-2;
SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. KIRAN J, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 3.1.2015 PASSED BY THE XVII A.C.M.M.,
BANGALORE TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING PROCESS IN
C.C.NO.248/2015 CONCERNING R.C.NO.9(S) AND
R.C.NO.10(S)/2013 OF CBI/SCB/CHENNAI AND FURTHER BE
PLEASED TO QUASH ALL THE PROCEEDINGS, PENDING
BEFORE THE SAID HON'BLE COURT OF THE XVII A.C.M.M.,
BANGALORE (SPL. COURT FOR CBI CASES) VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 21.04.2023 FOR ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In these petitions, the police personnel have challenged the order dated 5.1.2015 passed by the 17th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in CC No.348/2015 in RC No.9(S) and RC No.10(S)/2013 of CBI/SCB/Chennai, CC No.397/2015, CC No.334/2015, CC No.397/2015, CC No.334/2015, CC No.348/2015, the order dated 3.1.2015 in CC No.248/2015 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 427, 435 read with Section 149 of IPC.
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS
2. The facts of the case giving rise to filing of these petitions are as follows:
a) An unfortunate incident occurred at the City Civil Court Complex in Bengaluru, resulting in multiple first information reports (FIRs) being filed against the police personnel, members of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru (AAB) and media personnel. The AAB and the Advocates, alleging that the local police conducting investigation was not fair and impartial, petitioned this Court to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). However, this Court declined the request, prompting the AAB to seek relief from the Hon'ble Supreme Court which eventually acceded to the request and transferred the investigation to the CBI.
b) The CBI registered the following five first information reports:
Five FIRs were registered by the C.B.I:-
1. RC No.7(S)/2013 and RC No.8(S)/2013 were registered on the basis of the two crimes registered at the behest of the Police.
2. RC No.9(S)/2013 was registered on the basis of Crime No.206/2013 registered on the complaint of the Registrar, City Civil Court.
3. RC No.10(S)/2013 was registered on the basis of the Crime No.222/2012, on the Complaint of Advocates' Association.
- 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS
4. RC No.11(S)/2013 was registered on the basis of one of the Complaints lodged by the Media.
3. The CBI after conducting investigation submitted the charge sheets before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners. Taking exception to the same, these petitions are filed.
4. Sri S Vijayshankar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners/police personnel would make the following submissions:
a) Previous sanction of the State Government under the provisions of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and under the provisions of Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 is "sine qua non" for prosecution of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty and that no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the State Government.
5. Chapter X of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with maintenance of public order and tranquility. Division "A" thereof is unlawful assemblies. Section 129 is dispersal of such assembly by use of civil force as distinguished from use of armed forces to disperse such assembly. Section 132 gives
- 29 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS protection against prosecution for acts done under Section 129. Section 132 further states that no prosecution shall be instituted in any Criminal Court except with the sanction of the State Government. Sub-section (2) Clause (b) lays down that no person doing any act in good faith in compliance with a requisition under Section 129 shall be deemed to have thereby committed an offence. Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code defines an unlawful assembly.
6. Chapter XIV is conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. Section 197 is prosecution of Judges and public servants. Every officer of the Government whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public health, safety or convenience, is a public servant. (Section 21, Eighth description of the Indian penal code, 1860). Sub-section (1) of Section 197 states that a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the State Government. In this regard, emphasis is laid on the word "previous".
7. Sub-section (1) of Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act states that in any case of alleged offence by a Police officer or Reserve Police officer, by an act done under colour or in excess of any such duty as aforesaid, or wherein it shall appear to the court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution shall not
- 30 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS be entertained except with the "previous" sanction of the Government.
8. In the present case it is indisputable that the previous sanction of the State Government was not taken before prosecuting the public servants for acts done by them in the discharge of official duties on 02-03-2012. The learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the charge sheets filed by the C.B.I.
9. The C.B.I. in the charge sheet dated 27-12-2014 filed against the public servants, advocates and media- television-persons, categorically stated in paragraph 15.34 that sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act will be submitted in due course. (Page 91 of Annexure "C" in Criminal Petition 977/2015 of P.S. Gachinakatti, Retired Assistant Commissioner of Police). The charge sheet which is filed in gross violation of the statutory mandate of previous sanction of the State Government is to be quashed on the said threshold illegality without going into the facts of the case.
10. The submission that the charge sheets are to be quashed on the ground of lack of previous sanction without examining the merits of the case is supported by precedent. In Criminal Petition No. 6926 of 2015 on the file of this Hon'ble Court decided on 03-09-2019, the charge sheet filed by the C.B.I. against media-television-personnel alleging commission of offences under Sections 120B and 153(A)(1)(b) I.P.C., Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and
- 31 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS Section 5 read with Section 16 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, arising from the very same incidents which occurred on 02-03-2012, was quashed for want of previous sanction under Section 196 of the Criminal procedure Code (which is in pari-materia with Section 197 Cr.P.C) and for non-compliance with Section 18 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The counsel for the C.B.I. did not dispute the fact that the mandatory requirements of Section 18 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 as well as the requirements of Section 196 Cr.P.C. have not been complied with. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the present charge sheet for the same reasons. It is the further submission that the fair submission made by the counsel for the C.B.I. is also made in the present cases. Without prejudice to the above, the following submissions are made.
11. The learned Senior Counsel places the reliance on the following decisions:
1. (2021) 8 SCC 768 - Indra Devi -vs- State of Rajasthan and another.
2. AIR 1961 Kerala 260 - Sankarankutty Menon and others -vs- Deputy Superintendent of Police, Trichur and others.
3. AIR 1963 Kerala 7 - State of Mysore -vs- Manikyam
4. 1973(2) Mys.L.J. 518 -vs- N Huchamasti Gowda -vs-
Janmada Aiyappa.
5. D Devaraja -vs- Owais Sabir Hussain (2020) 7 SCC
695.
- 32 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS
12. Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel representing the AAB would make the following submissions:
a) The then Director General and the Inspector General of Police having directed the then Commissioner of Police to withdraw the police from the City Civil Court Premises and the police deployed having been removed, the accused police personnel had no authority to enter the Civil Court premises and any act done thereafter does not come under the purview of discharging their duties.
Therefore, the accused police personnel having resorted to violence and damaged the properties are not entitled for protection under Section 197 of Cr.PC and Section 170 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
b) The requirement of granting sanction to prosecute before taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused police personnel is not mandatory, and the Trial Court at any time after taking cognizance can examine whether the act/s of the accused police personnel was in the course of performance of the duties. Therefore, the question of sanction can be left open to be decided at a later stage and at this stage, the cognizance taken does not warrant any interference.
13. In support, he places reliance on the following decisions:
1. (2019)6 SCC 111 S.K. Miglani v. State (NCT of Delhi)
- 33 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS
2. (2015) 2 SCC 33 Manzoor Ali Khan v. Union of India,
3. (2012) 3 SCC 64 Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh.
4. (2009) 17 SCC 92 - State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti.
5. (2006) 1 SCC 294 Romesh Lal Jain v Naginder Singh Rana.
6. (2002) 6 SCC 543 Raj Kishor Roy v. Kamleshwar Pandey.
7. (2019) 4 SCC 351-Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar.
8. (2016) 8 SCC 722, Surinderjit Singh Mand v. State of Punjab.
9. (2013) 15 SCC 624, Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh.
10. (2016) 12 SCC 87,Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab.
11. (2014) 13 SCC 70, Chandan Kumar Basu v. State of Bihar.
12. (2001) 6 SCC 704, P.K.Pradahan v State of Sikkim.
14. Principles regarding Section 197 Cr.PC summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
1. (2016) 12 SCC 87, Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab.
2. (2013) 8 SCC 119, State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh G. Jain.
- 34 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS
15. After examining the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the main issue involved in these petitions revolves around determining whether the action of the petitioners, who are the police personnel were carried out within the scope of the duties or if they exceeded their duties, influencing their eligibility to seek protection under Section 197 Cr.PC and Section 170 of Police Protection Act.
16. Before delving into the matter at hand, it is pertinent to cite Section 197 of Cr.PC and Section 170 Karnataka Police Act and extract the legal principle associated with the said provisions.
17. Section 197 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government:
- 35 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression" State Government" occurring therein, the expression" Central Government" were substituted.
[Explanation: For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB] or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1869)] (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-
section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub- section will apply as if for the expression" Central Government"
occurring therein, the expression" State Government" were substituted.
3(A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting
- 36 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.] (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held.
18. Section 170 of Karnataka Police Act:
170. Suits or prosecutions in respect of acts done under colour of duty as aforesaid not to be entertained without sanction of Government.--(1) In any case of alleged offence by the Commissioner, a Magistrate, Police Officer or Reserve Police Officer or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such Commissioner, Magistrate, Police Officer or Reserve Police Officer or other person, by any act done under colour or in excess of any such duty or
- 37 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS authority as aforesaid, or wherein it shall appear to the court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained except with the previous sanction of the Government.
(2) In the case of an intended suit on account of such a wrong as aforesaid, the person intending to sue shall be bound to give to the alleged wrongdoer one month's notice at least of the intended suit with sufficient description of the wrong complained of, failing which such suit shall be dismissed.
(3) The plaint shall set forth that a notice as aforesaid has been served on the defendant and the date of such service, and shall state whether any, and if so, what tender of amends has been made by the defendant. A copy of the said notice shall be annexed to the plaint endorsed or accompanied with a declaration by the plaintiff of the time and manner of service thereof.
(2019) 6 SCC 111 S.K. Miglani v. State (NCT of Delhi, Paras 14, 16:
i) At the stage, when the Court was considering the question regarding applicability of Section 197 CrPC, it was not necessary for the CMM to make an observation that the appellant had done an act of forgery. The FSL Report was one of the pieces of evidence collected by IO. Its evidentiary value was still to be gone into at the time of trial in the light of the evidence, which may come before the trial court.
ii) The observation made by CMM as extracted above, by giving an opinion using the expression that the appellant has committed forgery, ought to have been avoided.
The Magistrate, at any stage prior to the final trial, is to avoid any conclusive opinion regarding any evidence collected during the investigation. It is true that evidence collected in the investigation can be looked into to form an opinion as to whether prima facie charge
- 38 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS is made out against an accused and what is the nature of the offence alleged against him.
(2015) 2 SCC 33 Manzoor Ali Khan v. Union of India, Para 13 Thus, while it is not possible to hold that the requirement of sanction is unconstitutional, the competent authority has to take a decision on the issue of sanction expeditiously as already observed. A fine balance has to be maintained between need to protect a public servant against mala fide prosecution on the one hand and the object of upholding the probity in public life in prosecuting the public servant against whom prima facie material in support of allegation of corruption exists, on the other hand.
(2012) 3 SCC 64 Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, Para 44 We may also observe that grant or refusal of sanction is not a quasi-judicial function and the person for whose prosecution the sanction is sought is not required to be heard by the competent authority before it takes a decision in the matter. What is required to be seen by the competent authority is whether the facts placed before it which, in a given case, may include the material collected by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie disclose commission of an offence by a public servant. If the competent authority is satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant, then it is required to grant sanction. If the satisfaction of the competent authority is otherwise, then it can refuse sanction. In either case, the decision taken on the complaint made by a citizen is required to be communicated to him and if he feels aggrieved by such decision, then he can avail of appropriate legal remedy.
(2009) 17 SCC 92 - State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti, Paras 6, 7.
i) Although the State in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory jurisdiction, the same, however, would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised once again. For exercising its
- 39 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS jurisdiction at a subsequent stage, express power of review in the State may not be necessary as even such a power is administrative in character. It is, however, beyond any cavill that while passing an order for grant of sanction, serious application of mind on the part of the authority concerned is imperative. The legality and/or validity of the order granting sanction would be subject to review by the criminal courts. An order refusing to grant sanction may attract judicial review by the superior courts.
ii) Validity of an order of sanction would depend upon application of mind on the part of the authority concerned and the material placed before it. All such material facts and material evidence must be considered by it. The sanctioning authority must apply its mind on such material facts and evidence collected during the investigation. Even such application of mind does not appear from the order of sanction, extrinsic evidence may be placed before the court on that behalf. While granting sanction, the authority cannot take into consideration an irrelevant fact nor can it pass an order on extraneous consideration not germane for passing a statutory order. It is also well settled that the superior courts cannot direct the sanctioning authority either to grant sanction or not to do so. The source of power of an authority passing an order of sanction must also be considered. The authority concerned cannot also pass an order of sanction subject to ratification of a higher authority.
(2006) 1 SCC 294 Romesh Lal Jain v Naginder Singh Rana, Para 14 It is also beyond any cavil of doubt that an order granting or refusing sanction must be preceded by application of mind on the part of the appropriate authority. If the complainant or the accused can demonstrate such an order granting or refusing sanction to be suffering from non-application of mind, the same may be called in question before a competent court of law.
(2002) 6 SCC 543 Raj Kishor Roy v. Kamleshwar Pandey, Para 11
- 40 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS In this case, as indicated above, the complaint was that the 1st respondent had falsely implicated the appellant and his brother in order to teach them a lesson for not paying anything to him. The complaint was that the 1st respondent had brought an illegal weapon and cartridges and falsely shown them to have been recovered from the appellant and his brother. The High Court was not right in saying that even if these facts are true then also the case would come within the purview of Section 197 CrPC. The question whether these acts were committed and/or whether the 1st respondent acted in discharge of his duties could not have been decided in this summary fashion. This is the type of case where the prosecution must be given an opportunity to establish its case by evidence and an opportunity given to the defence to establish that he had been acting in the official course of his duty. The question whether the 1st respondent acted in the course of performance of duties and/or whether the defence is pretended or fanciful can only be examined during the course of trial. In our view, in this case the question of sanction should be left open to be decided in the main judgment which may be delivered upon conclusion of trial.
19. No Blanket Requirement of sanction for prosecuting all public servants.
(2019) 4 SCC 351-Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, Paras - 3,6,10,11.
i) The question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant) against Respondent 2 holding that there was no prima facie case made out against Respondent 2 for issuance of the process of the summons to him for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 379 and 504 IPC.
ii) The High Court quashed the complaint essentially on two grounds; First, no sanction under Section 197 CrPC was obtained by the prosecution for filing the complaint against Respondent 2 and the second, there are
- 41 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS contradictions in the statement of the complainant and the witnesses.
iii) In our view, in order to attract the rigor of Section 197 CrPC, it is necessary that the offence alleged against a government officer must have some nexus or/and relation with the discharge of his official duties as a government officer. In this case, we do not find it to be so.
iv) So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 CrPC had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against Respondent 2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the appellate court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the trial court but not in Section 482 CrPC proceedings.
v) In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order [Umesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 35751 of 2014, order dated 9-8-2017 (Pat)] and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.
(2016) 8 SCC 722, Surinderjit Singh Mand v. State of Punjab, Para - 20.
Keeping the legal position emerging from the provisions of the Code referred to in the foregoing paragraphs in mind, it was the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that in order to require sanction under Section 197 of the Code, it needs to be further established that the appellants had acted in the manner provided for under the provisions of the Code during the period Neeraj Kumar was allegedly arrested (from 24-6- 1999 to 28-6-1999) i.e. before his admitted formal arrest on 28-6-1999. And only if they had done so, the requirement of seeking sanction under Section 197 would arise because in that situation the offence allegedly committed would be taken to have been
- 42 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS committed "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties". In the present case the arrest and detention of Neeraj Kumar from 24-6-1999 to 28-6-1999 is denied. The formalities postulated under the Code on the alleged arrest of Neeraj Kumar on 24-6- 1999 were admittedly not complied with, as according to the appellants Neeraj Kumar was not arrested on that date. It was therefore submitted that any arrest or detention prior to 28-6-1999, if true, was obviously without following the mandatory conditions of arrest and detention contemplated under the provisions (referred to above). And therefore, would not fall within the realm of "acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties".
(2013) 15 SCC 624, Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh, Paras - 63,65,66.
i) The test of direct and reasonable connection between the official duty of the accused and the acts allegedly committed by them is, therefore, the true test to be applied while deciding whether the protection of Section 197 CrPC is available to a public servant accused of the commission of an offence. The High Court has not adverted to this test nor has it held that there existed a direct and reasonable connection between the official duty being discharged by the accused public servant and the acts committed by him. The High Court has on the contrary misdirected itself when it said that the accused had only committed an act of omission towards his official duties which entitled him to the protection of Section 197 of the Code.
ii) It is difficult to appreciate what the High Court meant by saying that the acts of the accused were "at best acts of omission towards official duty". It was not the case of the respondent before the High Court nor is it his case before us that the complaint filed by Maya Devi disclosed any offence which could be taken cognizance of by him as an Executive Magistrate or investigated by the police. Assuming that the complainant and R.C. Chopra were living together even when they were not married to each other, the complaint regarding any such relationship could be filed only by the wife of R.C. Chopra, or the husband of the complainant Urmila Devi.
- 43 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS The complaint filed by Maya Devi could not provide a valid basis for the SDM, the Tahsildar or the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned to barge into the house of the complainant, humiliate or harass her or drag her to the police station without the registration of any case or subject her to an uncalled for medical examination. The test of direct and reasonable connection between the official duty of the respondent Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the police officers concerned and the acts complained of thus fails in the present case especially because there is not even a semblance of a lawful justification forthcoming from the respondent for what he did. Entering the house of a woman, after sunset with a posse of police force, carrying video cameras conducting an unwarranted search of the house, humiliating and invading the privacy of the complainant, insulting and humiliating R.C. Chopra by asking him to undress and dragging both of them to the police station for medical examination against their wishes, especially when male doctors were asked to examine the complainant which added insult to injury, all remain unsupported by any lawful justification and have no connection with the duties that were cast upon the respondent as a public servant, even if a complaint alleging an adulterous relationship between the appellant and R.C. Chopra had been received by the SDM. The alleged acts of the respondent cannot, therefore, be said to be in discharge of his official duties or in the purported discharge of such duties.
iii) Public functionaries cannot under the cloak of purported discharge of official duties resort to harassment and humiliation of the citizens on the pretext of a complaint having been received by them, especially when the same does not disclose the commission of any offence triable by the Executive Magistrate or cognizable by the police; nor was there any other proceeding in connection with which such conduct could be justified in law. The plea of the respondent that the prosecution was barred under Section 197 CrPC has, therefore, to be rejected.
20. Sanction can be taken at different stages, not necessarily before cognizance.
- 44 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS (2016) 12 SCC 87,Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Para - 40.
In the instant cases, the allegation as per the prosecution case is that it was a case of fake encounter or death caused by torture whereas the defence of the accused person is that it was a case in discharge of official duty and as the deceased was involved in the terrorist activities and while maintaining law and order the incident has taken place. The incident was in the course of discharge of official duty. Considering the aforesaid principles in case the version of the prosecution is found to be correct, there is no requirement of any sanction. However, it would be open to the accused persons to adduce the evidence in defence and to submit such other materials on record indicating that the incident has taken place in discharge of their official duties and the orders passed earlier would not come in the way of the trial court to decide the question afresh in the light of the aforesaid principles from stage to stage or even at the time of conclusion of the trial at the time of judgment. As at this stage it cannot be said which version is correct. The trial court has prima facie to proceed on the basis of the prosecution version and can re-decide the question afresh in case from the evidence adduced by the prosecution or by the accused or in any other manner it comes to the notice of the court that there was a reasonable nexus of the incident with discharge of official duty, the court shall re-examine the question of sanction and take decision in accordance with law. The trial to proceed on the aforesaid basis.
(2014) 13 SCC 70, Chandan Kumar Basu v. State of Biahr, Para - 11.
The above discussion will now require the Court to consider the question as to whether the acts giving rise to the alleged offences had been committed by the accused in the actual or purported discharge of his official duties. In a series of pronouncements commencing with K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 266 : 1960 Cri LJ 410] ; Harihar Prasad v. State of Bihar [(1972) 3 SCC 89 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 409] and Parkash Singh Badal v. State of
- 45 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS Punjab [(2007) 1 SCC 1 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 193] it has been consistently held that it can be no part of the duty of a public servant or acting in the discharge of his official duties to commit any of the offences covered by Sections 406, 409, 420, etc. and the official status of the public servant can, at best, only provide an opportunity for commission of the offences. Therefore, no sanction for prosecution of the public servant for such offences would be required under Section 197 of the Code. Notwithstanding the above, the High Court had granted liberty to the appellant to raise the issue of sanction, if so required, depending on the evidence that may come on record in the course of the trial. Despite the view taken by this Court in the series of pronouncements referred to above, the opportunity that has been provided by the High Court to the benefit of the appellant need not be foreclosed by us inasmuch as in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari [AIR 1956 SC 44 : 1956 Cri LJ 140] , P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim [(2001) 6 SCC 704 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1234] and Parkash Singh Badal [(2007) 1 SCC 1 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 193] this Court had consistently held that the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Code can be raised at any time after cognizance had been taken and may have to be determined at different stages of the proceeding/trial.
(2001) 6 SCC 704, P.K.Pradahan v State of Sikkim, Para -15.
Thus, from a conspectus of the aforesaid decisions, it will be clear that for claiming protection under Section 197 of the Code, it has to be shown by the accused that there is reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty. An official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it. For invoking protection under Section 197 of the Code, the acts of the accused complained of must be such that the same cannot be separated from the discharge of official duty, but if there was no reasonable connection between them and the performance of those duties, the official status furnishes only the occasion or opportunity for the acts, then no sanction would be required. If the case as put forward by the prosecution fails or the defence establishes that the act purported to be done is in discharge of duty, the proceedings will have to be dropped. It is well settled that question of sanction
- 46 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS under Section 197 of the Code can be raised any time after the cognizance; maybe immediately after cognizance or framing of charge or even at the time of conclusion of trial and after conviction as well. But there may be certain cases where it may not be possible to decide the question effectively without giving opportunity to the defence to establish that what he did was in discharge of official duty. In order to come to the conclusion whether claim of the accused that the act that he did was in course of the performance of his duty was a reasonable one and neither pretended nor fanciful, can be examined during the course of trial by giving opportunity to the defence to establish it. In such an eventuality, the question of sanction should be left open to be decided in the main judgment which may be delivered upon conclusion of the trial.
21. Principles Regarding Section 197 Cr.PC summarised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(2016) 12 SCC 87, Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Para - 39.
The principles emerging from the aforesaid decisions are summarised hereunder:
* Protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his duty honestly and to the best of his ability to further public duty. However, authority cannot be camouflaged to commit crime.
* Once an act or omission has been found to have been committed by a public servant in discharging his duty it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned. Public servants are not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent Section 197 CrPC has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner.
* Even in cases when a public servant has exceeded in his duty, if there is reasonable connection it will not deprive him of protection under Section 197 CrPC. There cannot be a universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable nexus between the act done and official duty nor is it possible to lay down such rule.
- 47 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS * In case the assault made is intrinsically connected with or related to performance of official duties, sanction would be necessary under Section 197 CrPC, but such relation to duty should not be a pretended or fanciful claim. The offence must be directly and reasonably connected with official duty to require sanction. It is not part of official duty to commit an offence. In case offence was incomplete without proving, the official act, ordinarily the provisions of Section 197 CrPC would apply.
* In case sanction is necessary, it has to be decided by competent authority and sanction has to be issued on the basis of sound objective assessment. The court is not to be a sanctioning authority.
* Ordinarily, question of sanction should be dealt with at the stage of taking cognizance, but if the cognizance is taken erroneously and the same comes to the notice of court at a later stage, finding to that effect is permissible and such a plea can be taken first time before the appellate court. It may arise at inception itself. There is no requirement that the accused must wait till charges are framed.
* Question of sanction can be raised at the time of framing of charge and it can be decided prima facie on the basis of accusation. It is open to decide it afresh in light of evidence adduced after conclusion of trial or at other appropriate stage.
* In some cases it may not be possible to decide the question effectively and finally without giving opportunity to the defence to adduce evidence. Question of good faith or bad faith may be decided at the conclusion of trial.
(2013) 8 SCC 119, State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh G. Jain, Para - 14.
From the aforesaid authorities the following principles can be culled out:
- 48 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS * It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
* The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
* The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it.
* Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
* The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
* If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
* The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity.
In the case of D Devaraja -vs- Owais Sabir Hussain (2020) 7 SCC 695, it is held at paras-65 to 73 as follows:
65. The law relating to the requirement of sanction to entertain and/or take cognizance of an offence, allegedly committed by a police officer under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, is well settled by this Court, inter alia by its decisions referred to above.
- 49 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS
66. Sanction of the Government, to prosecute a police officer, for any act related to the discharge of an official duty, is imperative to protect the police officer from facing harassive, retaliatory, revengeful and frivolous proceedings. The requirement of sanction from the Government, to prosecute would give an upright police officer the confidence to discharge his official duties efficiently, without fear of vindictive retaliation by initiation of criminal action, from which he would be protected under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. At the same time, if the policeman has committed a wrong, which constitutes a criminal offence and renders him liable for prosecution, he can be prosecuted with sanction from the appropriate Government.
67. Every offence committed by a police officer does not attract Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. The protection given under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act has its limitations. The protection is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and official duty is not merely a cloak for the objectionable act. An offence committed entirely outside the scope of the duty of the police officer, would certainly not require sanction. To cite an example, a policeman assaulting a domestic help or indulging in domestic violence would certainly not be entitled to protection. However, if an act is connected to the discharge of official duty of investigation of a recorded criminal case, the act is certainly under colour of duty, no matter how illegal the act may be.
68. If in doing an official duty a policeman has acted in excess of duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the fact that the act alleged is in excess of duty will not be ground enough to deprive the policeman of the protection of the government sanction for initiation of criminal action against him.
69. The language and tenor of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 170 of the Karnataka
- 50 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS Police Act makes it absolutely clear that sanction is required not only for acts done in discharge of official duty, it is also required for an act purported to be done in discharge of official duty and/or act done under colour of or in excess of such duty or authority.
70. 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.
71. If the act alleged in a complaint purported to be filed against the policeman is reasonably connected to discharge of some official duty, cognizance thereof cannot be taken unless requisite sanction of the appropriate Government is obtained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act.
72. On the question of the stage at which the trial court has to examine whether sanction has been obtained and if not whether the criminal proceedings should be nipped in the bud, there are diverse decisions of this Court.
73. While this Court has, in D.T. Virupakshappa [D.T. Virupakshappa v. C. Subash, (2015) 12 SCC 231 :
(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 82] held that the High Court had erred [D.T. Virupakshappa v. C. Subash, 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 10774] in not setting aside an order of the trial court taking cognizance of a complaint, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in Matajog Dobey [Matajog Dobey v.
H.C. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44 : 1956 Cri LJ 140] this Court held that it is not always necessary that the need for sanction under Section 197 is to be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on the allegations contained therein. The complainant may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty and/or under colour of duty. However, the facts
- 51 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS subsequently coming to light in course of the trial or upon police or judicial enquiry may establish the necessity for sanction. Thus, whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined at any stage of the proceedings.
22. The understanding derived from examining Section 197 of Cr.PC and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act along with the legal principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the provisions contained in Section 197 of Cr.PC is summarized as follows:
i) According to Section 197 of Cr.PC, a sanction to prosecute is necessary when a public servant's actions are within the scope of their official duties or exceed such boundaries.
ii) If the action of the public servants is not within the scope of official duties or exceeded scope of his official duties, the sanction to prosecute under Section 197 of Cr.PC is not mandated.
iii) In cases where the charge sheet does not inherently establish that the action was within the scope of official duties or beyond such limitation, the Trial Court after evaluating the materials at any stage can halt the proceeding and direct the prosecution to obtain sanction to prosecute to proceed further.
23. The term `excess of duties' as per Section 197 of Cr.PC, generally refers to action performed by a public servant that exceeds the scope of his official duties.
24. Upon reviewing the contents of Section 197 of the Cr.PC, it is essential to consider the matter at hand.
25. The examination of the charge sheets reveals the following:
- 52 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS Police personnel were assigned for the production of the accused, Sri Janardhan Reddy, a former Minister, before the CBI Court at the City Civil Court premises in Bengaluru on December 3, 2012. The situation escalated when media personnel arrived, triggering objections from some lawyers. Chaos ensued, leading to the imposition of Section 144 of the Cr.PC by the Commissioner of Police around 10:45 a.m.
26. At approximately 10:45 a.m., Janardhan Reddy was presented before the Court, followed by his shifting to Boring Hospital for a medical examination at 11:45 a.m. Subsequent clashes erupted around the Court complex at 11:50 a.m., resulting in the Assistant Commissioner of Police ordering a lathi charge to disperse the agitated advocates. By 12:00 noon, the Police Commissioner arrived and ordered another lathi charge. At 12:15 p.m., while the Deputy Commissioner of Police was attempting to calm the advocates, he was hit by a stone thrown by one of them, leading to his injury and hospitalization. During this time, the deployed police personnel entered the Court premises, allegedly assaulting advocates and causing damage to parked vehicles, actions that occurred between 12:00 noon and 1:30 p.m. when they were providing security.
27. Recognizing the excessive use of force, the then Hon'ble Chief Justice directed the withdrawal of police forces from the Court premises around 1:30 p.m. The then Inspector General of police directed the then Police Commissioner to withdraw the forces from the Court premises and accordingly, at about 1.30 p.m. the forces were moved out of the Court.
- 53 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS
28. Post 1.30 p.m. the investigation conducted by the CBI reveals as follows:
15.31. Investigation revealed that, Shri Ravikanthe Gowda ordered for lathi charge at 1.45 PM, on the ground that, advocates set ablaze a Police motorcycle and the Police Outpost. This lathi charge lasted till 3 PM. As per the available Video, it is seen that, there was no fire till close to 2 PM.
Hence, this lathi-charge is not justified. Investigation revealed that, at about 1.45 PM, the Police persons who were kept as reserve at Mysore Bank Circle, Arts College ground entered the Court premises and lathi charge was restored to as per the Instructions of Shri.Ravikanthe Gowda, DCP North East who was the incharge of the bandhobust duty in place of Shri Ramesh, DCP central. As a result, the advocates took shelter in their Association building, which is located behind the Police Outpost. Another group of advocates ran towards southern side of the City Civil Court.
15.33. Investigation revealed that,
Sh.Mahabalishiora, S/o Late Sh.K.
Lakshminarayana Madiastha, a Xerox shop keeper in the northern side of the City Civil, adjacent to Police Outpost has witnessed between 1:30 PM and 2:30 PM Police entering into Advocates' Association building and breaking glasses and other articles.
15.34. The recordings of the incidents of 02.3.12 in the DVD collected from Commissioner Office shows at 13.45.45 hours, a group of Policemen run towards the advocates in an aggressive mood from gate No.2 to Police Outpost side and started lathi charge Indiscriminately, without any warning, sound of lathi charge and screaming can be heard, but, the cameraman has focused the camera towards advocates standing in different floors of the Court. It is also seen at 13:48:44 hours, 3 Policemen enter the shop in
- 54 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS front of Advocates' Association building and assault advocates hiding inside the shop.
15.36. Thus, the investigation reveals that, the following Police Personnel, in furtherance of a common intention, on 2.3.2012 while being deployed on bandobust duty in the City Civil Court premises, between 1.45 PM and 3 PM, in the guise of mob dispersal, criminally assaulted the advocates mentioned Para 15.29 and damaged vehicles shown in Para 15.30 and Advocates' Association Building.
"Investigation revealed that between 2.45 PM and 3 PM Justice K.L.Manjunath informed Shri Ravikanthe Gowda, DCP that advocates wanted to go out and they are afraid of Police presence in the Mysore Bank Circle and directed Ravikanthe Gowda to ensure safety of the advocates, who ever wanted to return to his house. Shri Ravikanthe Gowda, passed instructions to officer Incharge of Mysore Bank Circle Shri Siddarappa, DCP to withdraw the Police from that place. At that time some advocates went out in the presence of the Hon'ble Justice Manjunath. After seeing the advocates going out from Court premises Hon'ble Justice Manjunath left the place."
29. The CBI investigation post-1:30 p.m., when the police personnel were withdrawn from the court premises indicated that the police personnel, while on bandobast/ security duty engaged in criminal acts under the pretext of dispersing a mob. The charge sheet materials also indicated that the prohibitory order u/s 144 Crpc was also in force, and the police personnel were on security duty. The Charge sheet material does not establish that the police personnel were not on security duty thereby making them ineligible for protection under Section 197 Cr.PC.
- 55 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 977 of 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS
30. The charge sheet explicitly notes that the actions of the police personnel, committed during security duty and under the guise of mob dispersal, were involved in criminal assaults on advocates, damage to vehicles, and Court property. These actions, if proven, would indicate a breach beyond the scope of their duties, thus potentially entitling them to the protection as mandated under Section 197 of the Cr.PC and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. Consequently, the prosecution's initiation without the required sanction stands legally flawed.
31. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petitions are allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 5.1.2015 passed in CC No.348/2015 in RC No.9(S) and RC No.10(S)/2013 of CBI/SCB/Chennai by the 17th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru taking the cognizance of the aforesaid offences are hereby quashed.
iii) The CBI to approach the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance in the event the State Government grants sanction to prosecute in light of the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2200/2016 c/w W.P.No.47539/2015.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKM