Telangana High Court
Thota Nagaraju vs The State Of Telangana on 30 September, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.591 OF 2024
ORDER:
1 This criminal revision case is filed challenging the Order dated 18.7.2023 passed in Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Khammam, wherein and whereby the learned Sessions Judge set aside the Order dated 30.11.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.766 of 2022 in C.C.No.2650 of 2022 by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, discharging the revision petitioner / A.42 from the proceedings in C.C.No.2650, for the offence punishable under Section 166 IPC. 2 Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State-1st respondent and Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the record.
3 Succinctly the factual matrix is that the petitioner herein was arrayed as accused No.42 in C.C.No.2650 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam, registered for the offences punishable under Section 166 IPC, on the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein. The second respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner / A.42 along with 41 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 149, 166, 294 (b), 323, 324, 427, 447 and 506 r/w 34 and 109 IPC. The trial Court took cognizance of the said offences and issued process to all the accused. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.766 of 2022 in C.C.No.2650 of 2022 seeking to discharge him on the ground that he is a public servant and sanction is required to prosecute him. That petition was opposed by the second respondent herein stating that the petitioner failed to discharge his duty as a public servant and facilitated the other accused in commission of the alleged offences by maintaining stoic silence without initiating any proceedings against them and as such no sanction is required to prosecute the petitioner and there is evidence in abundance to connect the petitioner with the crime. The second respondent further contended that if at all such sanction is required, it can be obtained at any stage during the course of trial. 4 The trial Court, upon perusing the material available on record and hearing both sides, allowed the petition i.e. Crl.M.P.No.766 of 2022 filed by the petitioner and discharged him from the proceedings, by order dated 30.11.2022 on the ground that no previous sanction as envisaged under Section 197 Cr.P.C was obtained to proceed against the petitioner. Aggrieved, the second respondent filed Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2023 before the learned Sessions Judge, Khammam, who set aside the order passed by the trial Court and directed the trial Court to proceed against the petitioner / A.42 in accordance with law, by order dated 18.7.2023. As stated supra, feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner / A.2 filed this criminal revision case.
5 Now the point for consideration is whether or not the petitioner can be discharged from the offence punishable under Section 166 of IPC in C.C.No.2650 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam? 6 Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. states that nothing in this Section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless.
7 Section 197 Cr.P.C states that:
(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.
8 In the order impugned, the learned Sessions Judge, while allowing the Criminal Revision Case filed by the second respondent herein, observed as follows:
The acts of the petitioner / A.42 cannot be said to be directly concerned with his official duties. In other words, the alleged acts of the petitioner cannot be said to have arisen out of and in connection with his official duties. The petitioner stated that all the allegations made in the complaint in the C.C are false and baseless. This is a case where in order to come to the conclusion whether the claim of the petitioner that the allegations made against him in the complaint are false and baseless can only be examined during the course of trial by giving an opportunity to the second respondent to establish his case by adducing evidence and an opportunity to the petitioner to establish his defence.
9 It is not every offence committed by a public servant that requires sanction for prosecution under Section 197 (1) Cr.P.C. Whether sanction is required under Section 197 (1) Cr.P.C. will depend upon the facts of the each case. If the acts complained of are so integrally connected with the duties attaching to the office as to the inseparable from them, then sanction under Section 197 (1) Cr.P.C. would be necessary. But if there was no necessary connection between them and the performance of those duties, the official status furnishing only the occasion or opportunity for the acts, then no sanction would be required. The offence alleged to have been committed must have something to do or must be related in some manner, with the discharge of official duty.
10 A constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Matajog Dobey vs. H.C.Bhari1, after holding that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not violative of the fundamental rights conferred on a citizen under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, their Lordships summed up the position and observed on the test to be adopted for finding out whether Section 197 of the Code was attracted or not and to ascertain the scope and meaning of that Section, stated:
"There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty; the act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty."
11 Moreover, aspect of grant of sanction cannot be determined at the threshold of the case. The concept of Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not get immediately attracted on institution of the complaint case. Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. The necessity may reveal itself in the course of the progress of the case since not taking action on the complaint lodged by the second respondent and throwing the injunction orders granted by the competent civil 1 {1955} 28ITR 941 (SC) court into dust bin without conducting any enquiry into the contents of the complaint cannot be treated as official duty. 12 In the instant case, the offence alleged against the petitioner was under Section 166 IPC which reads as under:
Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
13 The complaint of the second respondent was that when he submitted the papers relating to the order of injunction granted by a competent civil Court restraining the other accused from interfering with the subject property of that particular case and when the other accused i.e. A.1 to A.41 are violating the said injunction orders, the second respondent approached the petitioner for taking action. But the petitioner without taking any action on the complaint made by the second respondent simply threw the papers into dust bin. Hence he is guilty of offence under Section 166 IPC.
14 The purport of Section 197 Cr.P.C is to accord sanction for prosecuting a public servant so as to prevent abuse of process of law and to avoid vexatious litigation as against them and hence public servant is being privileged under this Section to discharge his / her duties without any apprehension of being targeted for the actions taken in furtherance of such duties in accordance with law. But in the backdrop of the above factual scenario of the case on hand, the acts of the petitioner in not taking action on the complaint made by the second respondent cannot be termed as the acts done while discharging his official duty. Hence, in my considered view, the petitioner cannot seek protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
15 For the foregoing discussion, I find no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order and accordingly this criminal revision case is dismissed, leaving it open to the trial Court to proceed with the C.C. in accordance with law against the petitioner / A.42.
16 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal revision case shall also stand dismissed.
______________________ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Date: 30-09-2024 Kvsn