Criminal Revision No. 404 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 404 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.03.2010 Bhola Ram Tantia alias Naresh Tantia son of Om Parkash, aged about 27 years, r/o Ward No. 15, Ellenabad, Tehsil Ellenabad, Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. Ujagar Singh, Inspector, Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa. 2. Gharsa Ram, ASI, Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa. 3. Kuldeep Singh, Head Constable No. 272, Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa. 4. Maha Singh, Constable No. 775, Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa. 5. Krishan Kumar, Constable No. 1002, Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa. 6. Naveen Kumar, Drive No. 412, Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa. 7. The State of Haryana. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Mr. N.K. Godara, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate, with Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate, for respondents No. 1, 3 to 6. Criminal Revision No. 404 of 2009 2 Mr. Sandeep Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondent No. 7 – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the order, dated 16.12.08, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Sirsa, vide which, it accepted the application, for the discharge of the accused/respondents. 2. On 25.03.01, the accused/respondents, had come to the house of Bhola Ram son of Om Parkash Tantia, and tried to get opened the door of the main gate. When they could not succeed, in doing so, they jumped over the wall, from the rear side, and, took away Om Parkash Tantia, who was taking rest, at that time. They gave merciless beatings to the father of the complainant, and, took him to the Police Station. Due to the beatings, given by the accused, the father of the complainant expired. When the complainant, came to know of this fact, he had gone to the Police Station. The Police officials, with a view to save their skin, registered a false case, bearing FIR No. 61 dated 25.03.01, for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 13- A of the Gambling Act, whereas, the father of the complainant, was taking rest, at that time, and, he was not indulging into 'Satta Ki Khaiwala'. On the statement of the complainant, case under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, was registered. The investigation, was conducted, by CIA Staff, Sirsa, and, ultimately, cancellation report, was submitted. The complainant, when appeared, before the Court, Criminal Revision No. 404 of 2009 3 stated that, he did not agree with the cancellation report, and, wanted to file a protest petition. Thereafter, he filed a protest petition, alleging therein, that his father, was taken away by the Police, from his house, to the Police Station, and was given merciless beatings, resulting into his death. Ultimately, a criminal complaint, was filed, by the complainant. 3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused/respondents, were summoned, under Section 302 IPC, and the case was committed. 4. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, on the basis of application, for discharge, discharged the accused, vide order dated 16.12.08, on the ground, that the act, alleged to have been done by the respondents, was in the purported discharge of their official duties, and, in the absence of sanction, under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the complaint, could not be filed, nor cognizance thereof, could be taken. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the act of giving merciless beatings, to a person, by the Police officials, does not fall within the purview of their official duties. He further submitted that, no law allows the Police officials, to mercilessly beat a person, resulting into his death. He further submitted that the Criminal Revision No. 404 of 2009 4 respondents, therefore, committed the offence, punishable under Section 302 IPC, which did not have any nexus with their official duties, and, as such, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion that, in the absence of sanction, under Section 197 Cr.P.C., cognizance of the complaint could be taken. He also placed reliance, on Balraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2009(2), RCR (Criminal), 551, Om Prakash Chatak Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2005, Crl. L.J. 2739, State of Kerala Vs. V. Padmanabhan Nair (1999) 5, SCC, 690, Sant Kumar, SHO, Police Station Raikot and another Vs. The State of Punjab and another, 2003, Crl. L.J., 2949, Pukhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR, 1973 (SC), 2591, and, Raghbir Singh Bal Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bakshi and others, 2008(2), RCR (Criminal), 568, in support of his contention. He further submitted that the order of discharge of the respondents, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the death of Om Parkash Tantia, took place, on account of coronary insufficiency. They further submitted that, no beatings, were given, to Om Parkash Tantia, by the accused/respondents, as there was no visible physical injury, on his person, as per the post-mortem report. They further submitted that the matter, was also inquired into, by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ellenabad, and, after inquiry, he came to the conclusion, that no offence, was made out, against any of the Police officials. They further submitted that the case of the Criminal Revision No. 404 of 2009 5 complainant/revision-petitioner, that Om Parkash Tantia, his father, was given merciless beatings, was falsified, by the cause of death, given by the doctor. They further submitted that the death of Om Parkash Tantia, took place, due to insufficient supply of blood to the heart. They further submitted that the Court below, was also right, in holding, that the alleged act of the respondents, had clear nexus, with the purported discharge of their official duties, and, in the absence of sanction, under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the complaint, could not be filed, nor cognizance thereof, could be taken. They further submitted that the order impugned, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Specific allegations, were made, by the complainant, who is none else, than the son of Om Parkash Tantia, deceased, that his father (Om Parkash Tantia), was taken away, from his house, to the Police Station, and, given merciless beatings, by the respondents, posted in the Police Station, at the relevant time, resulting into his death. The mere fact that, there was no mark of any visible injury, on the person of the deceased, did not mean, that he was not given beatings. If the beatings, are given with kick and fist blows, some of which, may be on the vital parts of the body of the deceased, the same, could cause the death of the person, who is given such beatings. In those circumstances, there could hardly be any mark of visible Criminal Revision No. 404 of 2009 6 injuries, on the person of the deceased. Even due to such beatings, there can be insufficient supply of blood to the heart, resulting into the death of a person, due to cardiac arrest. What was the cause of supply of insufficient blood, to the heart of the deceased, is the question, which is required to be determined, during the trial of the case. The death, could occur, on account of invisible injuries, caused on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. It was too premature, to come to the conclusion, at the preliminary stage, that the death did not result, on account of the alleged causing of injuries, by the respondents. The purported acts of the respondents, did not have any nexus with their official duties. The Court below, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion that, in the absence of any sanction, under Section 197 Cr.P.C., no cognizance, could be taken. In Balraj Singh's case (supra), the Police officer, damaged the vehicle of the complainant, and injured him, by firing a shot from the rifle. In these circumstances, it was held that, no sanction, under Section 197 Cr.P.C., was required, for prosecuting the Police officer. In Om Prakash Chatak's case (supra), Sub Inspector of Police, allegedly gave beating, to the complainant, and poured tea, on his head, for the purpose of relieving him of money. In these circumstances, it was held, that the aforesaid act of the Sub Inspector, had no connection with the discharge of his official duty, and, as such, sanction for prosecution, under Section 197 Cr.P.C., was not required. In Sant Kumar, SHO, Police Station Raikot and another's case (supra), the Police officer, detained a person, in the Police Station, without the Criminal Revision No. 404 of 2009 7 registration of a case. It was held that, sanction for prosecution of the said Police officer, under Section 197 Cr.P.C., was not required. In State of Kerala's case (supra), a public servant, forged a valuable security, and committed the offences, punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC, for the purpose of cheating and using, as genuine a forged document. It was held that, it was no part of the duty of a public servant, while discharging his official work, to commit forgery of the type, covered by the aforesaid offences, and, no sanction, under Section 197 Cr.P.C., was required. In Raghbir Singh Bal's case (supra), injuries were caused, on the person of the complainant, and his brother, by the Police officials. It was held that, it could not be said, by any stretch of imagination, that such an act, was done, by the Police officials, in the discharge of their official duties, and, no sanction, under Section 197 Cr.P.C., was required. In Pukhraj's case (supra), the appellant, was a Postal Clerk. He was allegedly kicked, in the abdomen and abused by a superior officer, when the former met the latter, with a view to request for cancellation of his transfer. The Apex Court, held that, the acts, attributed to the accused, in the complaint, filed by the complainant, did not come within the scope of official duty, and no sanction, under Section 197 Cr.P.C., was required. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The order impugned, is, thus, illegal and liable to be set aside. 10. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Revision No. 404 Criminal Revision No. 404 of 2009 8 of 2009, is accepted. The order dated 16.12.08, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Sirsa, is set aside. The trial Court, is directed, to proceed further, in accordance with the provisions of law. 11. The Registry is directed to send copies of the order to the Courts concerned immediately. 15.03.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE