IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7 4 6 9 of 2007 Between: Sri Shaik Nazir Basha @ S. Nazir Ahmed … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao (292) Counsel for the Respondents : Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7 4 6 9 OF 2007 O R D E R : This Criminal Petition has been filed by Accused No.8 to quash the proceedings in PRC.No. 45 of 2005 on the file of the Court of II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner herein was working as Inspector of Police, Nellore and that he was discharging his official duties and that no proceedings could be initiated without obtaining prior sanction orders from the Government as required under section 197 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the alleged ingredients of the alleged offence have not been made out. 3. A reading of the complaint filed by the complainant reveals that she is the legally wedded wife of one Abdul Rasheed A-1 and that Accused Nos.2 to 6 are the relatives of her husband and that Accused No.7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, III-Town Police Station, Nellore and the present petitioner herein is Accused No.8 the Circle Inspector of Police, Nellore. It is further alleged that the marriage of the complainant was performed with Abdul Rasheed A-1 on 16-2- 1997 and that at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.25,000/- and 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given towards dowry and that after the marriage the other accused i.e., Accused Nos. 2 to 6 harassed her, demanding additional dowry of Rs.one lakh and that Accused Nos.2 to 6 abetted Accused No.1 to torture the complainant. It is also alleged that she had brought total Rs.55,000/- on three occasions from her parents house to meet the demand of A-1 to A-6. It is also alleged that she was beaten for not bringing of Rs.one lakh at a time and that she was further harassed to sell away the house plot owned by her father. It is also alleged that the said plot was sold and the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was given to the complainant. It is also alleged that the complainant by spending an amount of Rs.20,000/- got released 10 sovereign of gold ornaments and that she had kept gold ornaments along with Rs. 1,30,000/- in berwah. It is also alleged that on 15-5-2005 between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., when the complainant went out of the house to the market, Accused Nos.1 to 6 brought a tractor bearing Regdn.No. AP26-U-9644, trespassed into the house and removed all the articles and also broke open the beruva. Being informed by the neighbour, she returned to her house and resisted the acts of Accused Nos. 1 to 6 who beat her and caused injuries on her right hand. Inspite of protest, A1 to A6 had taken away gold ornaments, cash and went in the tractor brought by them. Then the complainant approached the Accused No.7 and also Accused No.8 and that instead of taking action on the oral complaint given by complainant, Accused Nos.7 and 8 are alleged to have abused and thrown her out of the police station. 4. The sworn statement of the complainant and one Shaik Saul, the brother of the complainant and Shaik Samad, the father of the complainant were recorded. All these witnesses have categorically stated that in their statements that when the complainant approached the petitioner herein he had abused her and thrown her out of the police station. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was discharging his official duty when a victim/complainant with injuries comes to police station and reports to the Station House Officer or Inspector of Police present in the police station that she was beaten by her husband and the relatives of her husband then it is the duty of the Station House Officer or the Inspector of Police to verify whether any cognizable offence has been reported or not if so they should register a case as required under section 1`54 Cr.P.C. and to proceed with investigation. It is submitted that the complainant was sent to the Hospital for medical certificate. However, the allegation of the complainant is that no case has been registered when she reported a cognizable offence. It is not the case of the petitioner that any case has been registered by the police when the complainant approached the police. 6. Abusing the complainant, who comes to the police station with injuries and throwing her out of the police station, in my considered view is not within the purview of discharging official duty of the Police Officer. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner has no protection under section 197 Cr.P.C. and no sanction is required to prosecute the police officers who are alleged to have committed the alleged offences which are not connected with their official duties. The trial court however without being uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this court shall proceed with the case on merits and in accordance with law, since it appears that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings at this stage, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. . _______________________________ JUSTICE B. CHANDRAKUMAR. 22-04-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7 4 6 9 OF 2007 Circulation Entry No. 0 9 Date: 22-04-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L