HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7582 of 2008 Date : 24.10.2011 Between : Sk. Kareemullah & others. …..Petitioners And Mude Sidde Naik & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7582 of 2008 ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-6 in P.R.C.No.37 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Kadapa, seeking to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid P.R.C. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, RCIU, Tirupati, filed final report (charge sheet) against the petitioners and another, for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 325, 326, 506 read with 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) and 2(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Respondent No.1 herein is a resident of Pandikunta Tanda in Kadapa District. On 28th of October 2001, Excise Police, Rayachoti arrested the 1st respondent on the allegation that he was in possession of 20 litres of I.D. liquor and registered a case in Crime No. 139/2001-02 under Section 7-A read with Section 8-E of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Later, he was released on bail and was attending the Court regularly, but when he failed to attend the Court on one date of hearing, the learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants against the 1st respondent and an application was filed to recall the said warrants. When the said application came up for hearing, on the ground that there was no appearance, the learned Magistrate remanded the 1st respondent to judicial custody and handed over him to the 2nd petitioner herein, who is accused No.2 in P.R.C.No.37 of 2007, and who is an ex-Court Constable present in the Court, with instructions to produce him before the Sub-Jail authorities. 4. The 1st respondent is a complainant in Crime No.15 of 2003, which is registered on the file of the CID Police Station, Hyderabad. In the aforesaid complaint, it is the case of the 1st respondent that when he was entrusted to accused No.2, who is petitioner No.2 herein, to produce before the jail authorities, accused No.2 informed accused No.1/Sub-Inspector of Police, about his judicial remand, and on such information, accused No.1 went to Sub-Jail, accompanied by accused Nos.3 and 6, in a Jeep. It is the complaint that accused Nos.1 to 6 abused the complainant in vulgar language and he was beaten by all the accused. After registering the case in Crime No.15 of 2003 on the report of respondent No.1, the case was investigated and on the requisition of the Additional Director General of Police (CID), Government issued sanction orders under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of accused Nos.3 and 6, by proceedings dated 23rd of August 2004. Likewise, on the requisition for issuance of sanction orders to prosecute accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, who are Excise Department Personnel, the Government refused to accord sanction by proceedings, dated 03.05.2006, and the Government further informed the Additional Director General of Police (CID), that it has decided to withdraw the sanction granted in respect of accused Nos.3 and 6. When the investigation was in progress, the 1st respondent herein approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.8408 of 2007, questioning the inaction on the part of respondent-Police in filing charge sheet in Crime No.15 of 2003. In the said writ petition, by way of interim order, a learned Single Judge of this Court issued directions to file charge sheet immediately in Crime No.15 of 2003. After completing investigation, charge sheet is filed before the I Additional District Munsif, Kadapa and the learned Judge has taken cognizance against the petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 6, for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 325, 326, 506 read with 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) and 2(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. In this criminal petition, it is argued by Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners that the learned Magistrate committed illegality in taking cognizance of offences against the petitioners in the absence of any sanction for prosecution as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in view of the protest of respondent No.1, who is accused in Crime No.139 of 2001-02, the assistance of the other petitioners was taken so as to comply with the lawful directions issued by the learned Magistrate to entrust him to the Sub-jail authorities, as such, the acts alleged against the petitioners are integrally connected with the discharge of duties as public servants, and in that view of the matter, the learned Magistrate has committed illegality in taking cognizance in the absence of any sanction by the Government. It is submitted that taking cognizance of offences in the absence of sanction and allowing to continue the proceedings against the petitioners, is nothing but abuse of process of law, and hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are fit to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, appearing for respondent No.1, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.2, that there are absolutely no grounds for the petitioners to seek quashing of proceedings in P.R.C.No.37 of 2007. It is submitted that though the 1st respondent was entrusted to the 2nd petitioner, who was present in the Court, with instructions to produce him before the Sub-Jail authorities, he has called the other accused, who went to the Sub-Jail premises and beat the 1st respondent. It is submitted that he was kicked on the back and they have inserted lathi stick into the mouth of the 1st respondent, which caused injury to his throat and he has lost his speech on account of the same. It is submitted that on account of kicks on his back, there is a fracture to his vertebra, and that those acts alleged against the petitioners are not in discharge of their official duties, as such, no sanction is required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for their prosecution. The learned counsel Sri T.Niranjan Reddy has also placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Pradhan Vs. The State of Sikkim[1], wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the scope of sanction required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. 7. In this case, it is to be noticed that it is the specific complaint of the 1st respondent/complainant in Crime No.15 of 2003, which is registered on the file of the CID Police Station, Hyderabad, that he was the Panchayat President of Pandikunta Thanda of Galiveedu Mandal in Kadapa District and he was representing the higher authorities against the excise officials when they were implicating the villagers in false excise cases. It is stated that with a view to harass him, he was falsely implicated in Crime No.139 of 2001-02 and he was duly attending the Magistrate Court, but on one occasion, by the time he appeared before the Court, the matter was called and warrants were issued against him. Though an application was filed to recall the warrants, on the ground that the counsel was absent, said petition was dismissed and the learned Magistrate has ordered to remand him to custody and he was entrusted to the 2nd petitioner herein to hand over to the Sub-Jail authorities. It is his specific case that instead of taking him to the Sub-Jail, the 2nd petitioner (A- 2) has called accused No.1, who is the Sub-Inspector and the other petitioners, who are the Excise Constables, who came there in a jeep and took him to the back side of Sub- Jail and beat him severely. It is specifically alleged that the petitioners have inserted lathi stick into his mouth and thereby caused injury to his throat, due to which, he lost consciousness. Thereafter, he was shifted from one hospital to the other and after taking MRI scan, it is revealed that there was a fracture on the vertebra. 8. Undisputedly, except petitioner No.2, no other accused were present when remand of respondent No.1 was ordered after dismissal of the application filed by him to recall the non-bailable warrants. Though it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy that as the 1st respondent was not entering into the jail, assistance of other petitioners taken, as such, it cannot be said that the said acts were not done in discharge of official duties, requiring sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., but the same are the matters which are to be gone into only at the trial. In a petition to quash the proceedings, it has to be seen as to whether the contents of the complaint, taken as it is, makes out a case against the petitioners. A bare perusal of the contents of the complaint and final report filed against the petitioners, prima facie, indicate that the acts complained of against the petitioners cannot be said to have been committed in discharge of their official duties. It is true that the Government has issued sanction orders on requisition by the additional Director General of Police (CID), so far as accused Nos.3 and 6 are concerned, but later, on the requisition for issuance of sanction orders against accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, the Government refused for grant of such orders and also informed that it has decided to cancel the sanction orders granted in respect of accused Nos.3 and 6 also, but when it is the case of respondent No.1 that no sanction is required, such orders issued by the Government either granting or refusing to grant sanction orders under Section 197 Cr.P.C., will not have any bearing on the issue for deciding this quash petition. As rightly contended by Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that for claiming protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C., one has to prove that there is a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty. In the judgment in the case of P.K.Pradhan (1 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 15 as under : “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 under Section 197 of the Code can be raised any time after the cognizance; may be 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 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”. 9. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred above, and in view of the final report filed against the petitioners herein, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, it cannot be said that the acts complained of against the petitioners were done only in discharge of their official duties. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted in this petition to quash the proceedings on the ground that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance though there is no sanction by the Government as contemplated under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Having regard to the complaint and final report filed, this Court is also of the view that the prosecution of the petitioners herein cannot be termed as abuse of the process. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this criminal petition, which is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th October 2011 ajr [1] 2001 (2) ALD (Crl) 332