Karnataka High Court
Sri. B.Nataraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:40262
CRL.P No. 8222 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8222 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.NATARAJU
S/O. SRI. H.K. BETTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC:POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR (PSI)
KANAKAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION,
KANAKAPURA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117
R/AT NO.5, VISHVESHWARAIAH BLOCK,
POLICE QUARTERS, KANAKAPURA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA DSITRICT-562117
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANAPATI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KANAKAPURA TOWN POLICE STATION
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
Digitally RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.
signed by REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUMA STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH
COURT OF HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI. K.V. NAGANANDA
S/O. SRI. VENKATARANASWAMI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT. MATHRUSHREE NILAYA,
AVR ROAD, J.C. LAYOUT,
KANAKAPRUA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:40262
CRL.P No. 8222 of 2019
(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. D.P.PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN
CRIME NO.84/2019 FILED UNDER SECTIONS 341, 504, 355 AND
323 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn.)
AND JMFC COURT AT KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT IN
SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED FILED BY THE 1st
RESPONDENT THAT IS KANAKAPURA TOWN POLICE STATION AS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the registration of First Information Report in Cr.No.84/2019 against him for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 355, 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) by the respondent No.1 at the instance of the respondent No.2.
2. The respondent No.2 claiming to be a social worker, lodged a complaint in writing about the commission of a cognizable offence by the petitioner. The respondent No.2 claimed that the petitioner had arrested a few villagers of his village, on the ground that they had stored liquor for sale and had seized the liquor bottles from the custody of -3- NC: 2023:KHC:40262 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2019 those persons. He alleged that when he went to the police station to enquire with the petitioner, he came to know that other persons who were also accused of similar offences, a petty offence was registered against them and were let off, after obtaining a bond. He alleged that when he insisted that the villagers of his village who were arrested, be treated alike, he was reprimanded and thereafter when he protested, he was manhandled, abused and assaulted by the petitioner. He was also threatened of being classified as a rowdy- sheeter in the police station. The respondent No.2 claimed that he was treated at Ramanagar hospital for the injuries sustained due to the assault by the petitioner. He claimed that thereafter the higher officers of the police were informed and the petitioner was directed to appear before the higher officers and when the respondent No.2 was getting ready to go before the higher officers, the petitioner along with thirty supporters belonging to a political party went to the office of the Superintendent of Police. Based on this, a case was registered by the Superintendent of Police, Ramanagar which was transferred to the jurisdictional police, who registered Cr.No.84/2019 for the offences punishable -4- NC: 2023:KHC:40262 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2019 under Sections 341, 504, 355 and 323 of IPC. The petitioner being aggrieved by the registration of First Information Report in Cr.No.84/2019, has filed this petition to quash the proceedings against them.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.2 was a rowdy-sheeter as per the memorandum issued by the Superintendent of Police dated 06.09.2012. He further contended that the petitioner too had lodged a complaint against the respondent No.2, as the respondent No.2 had assaulted the petitioner in the police station on the same day and that a case in Cr.No.83/2019 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 311, 332, 353 read with Section 34 of IPC. He submits that the respondent No.2 being a busybody in the village, had been supporting the persons who were illegally selling liquor against whom a case in Cr.No.41/2019 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of Karnataka Excise Act. Therefore, he contends that the instant case lodged against the petitioner is a counter blast to the case filed by him in Cr.No.83/2019 against respondent -5- NC: 2023:KHC:40262 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2019 No.2. Further he contends that the petitioner is a public servant and therefore, sanction under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Section 170 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963, was necessary before taking up any investigation. On these grounds, he prays that the investigation against the petitioner in Cr.No.84/2019 be quashed.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand submits that the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 clearly discloses commission of a cognizable offence. He submits that the fact that the petitioner had also lodged a complaint at 1:40 p.m., on 20.08.2019, goes to show that the respondent No.2 was present at the police station on the said day. It also shows that the respondent No.2 was taken to the police station by the petitioner and that the petitioner, the respondent No.2, Rajesh, Mr.Mallesh
- the Police Inspector and other staff went to the office of the Superintendent of Police. He therefore, submits that the presence of the respondent No.2 at the police station, on 05.08.2019 was established beyond doubt. He further -6- NC: 2023:KHC:40262 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2019 submits that since respondent No.2 had suffered injuries and he was treated at Ramanagara hospital, goes to show that the petitioner had assaulted the respondent No.2 which was not in the course of his official duty, but was a clear excess committed by the petitioner. He further submits that though petitioner was a public servant, the requirement of obtaining the sanction either under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and under Section 170 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 would arise only at the time of taking cognizance and not for the purpose of investigation. He therefore, submits that the contentions urged by the petitioner do not warrant consideration at the hands of the this Court to quash the proceedings. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in the case of D.Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain - (2020) 7 SCC 695.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2
6. The respondent No.2 alleged that when he had gone to enquire at the police station, where the petitioner -7- NC: 2023:KHC:40262 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2019 was working as a Sub-Inspector, about the cases filed by the petitioner against certain villagers of his village, under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, he came to know that similar cases filed against other accused were treated as petty offence and they were let off by obtaining a bond. He alleged that when he demanded, why his villagers were not treated similarly, the petitioner being the officer in charge of a police station, abused him and later assaulted him, resulting in injuries to the respondent No.2. The fact that the petitioner had also lodged a complaint against the respondent No.2 which registered in Cr.No.83/2019 establishes beyond doubt that the respondent No.2 was present at the police station on 05.08.2019 and that the respondent No.2 had challenged the action of the petitioner in filing a complaint against Mr. Gopal in Cr.No.41/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. It also establishes that the petitioner took the respondent No.2 into the police station, and he was made to sit at the reception and thereafter the petitioner and respondent No.2 and other officers in the police station went to the office of the Superintendent of Police. Thus there are traces of an -8- NC: 2023:KHC:40262 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2019 offence allegedly committed by the petitioner as reported by the respondent No.2 before the Superintendent of Police which also cannot be disbelieved. The petitioner cannot wish away, the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 on the ground that the respondent No.2 was a known rowdy- sheeter and that cases against him were also filed before the police station. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the instant investigation launched against the petitioner was a counter blast to the complaint lodged by him against the respondent No.2 cannot be accepted. In so far as the contention raised by the petitioner that a sanction under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code and Section 170 of Karnataka Police Act was necessary before launching any investigation, it is appropriate to refer to Section 197 of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:
"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 -9- NC: 2023:KHC:40262 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2019 duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktha Act, 2013]-
(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, or the State Government:
[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.]
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40262 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2019 [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 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB] or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(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
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40262 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2019 "Central Government" occurring therein, the expression "State Government" were substituted. (3A) 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 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
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40262 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2019 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."
A bare perusal of the aforesaid would indicate that the requirement of sanction to prosecute a public servant would arise only at the time of taking cognizance and not before.
7. Likewise a perusal of Section 170 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 discloses that the sanction is required to "prosecute a government servant" and not "before". The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.Devaraja (supra) also dealt with a similar situation, where cognizance of offence against the public servant was taken, without the requisite permission to sanction under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Therefore, all the grounds urged by the petitioner is not sufficient to hold
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:40262 CRL.P No. 8222 of 2019 that the prosecution initiated against him is mischievous or an abuse of process of law.
8. In that view of the matter, the petition is dismissed.
9. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have filed a case and counter case, the concerned Superintendent of Police shall hand over the investigation to police station within his jurisdiction, but not to the police station, where the petitioner worked as the Sub-Inspector of police.
10. It is needless to mention that the investigating officer shall not be influenced by the observations contained herein above.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18