Sc- Section 197 Of The Code Would Not Be Attracted Simply Because The Police Officers   Had   Exceeded   Their   Territorial Jurisdiction In Proceeding To Arrest The Accused

Case title:

Dr. S.M. Mansoori (Dead) Thr. Lr. Vs. Surekha Parmar & Ors

Date of Order:

April 12, 2023. 

Bench:

HON’BLE JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Parties:

Appellant: Dr. S.M. Mansoori (Dead) Thr. Lr.

Respondent: Surekha Parmar & Ors

SUBJECT:

In the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in Anuppur, the appellant lodged a complaint pursuant to Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Judicial Magistrate acknowledged the offenses on the basis of the complaint that are punishable by Sections 147, 323, 342, 504 and 506­B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-

Section 197:

No court has the authority to hear cases against the prosecution of crimes committed by public officials and judges, according to Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. For a judge, magistrate, or other public servant who has served in those capacities in the past or present and is prohibited from being removed from office due to government sanctions, the offense must have been committed while doing their official duties. 

It covers both Central Government and State Government workers who were working at the time the offense was committed.

OVERVIEW:

• The complainant was the initial appellant. Dr. Mushtaq Mansoori, the son of the original appellant, is the appellant currently Dr. Mushtaq was wed to a woman named Mehjabi Anjum. A First Information Report (F.I.R.) was filed by Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur against the appellant and their family members for the offenses punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1964 on the basis of a complaint made by Mehjabi on January 18, 2000.
• According to the original appellant's complaint, on July 6, 2000, the first respondent, Smt. Surekha Parmar, the then-assistant sub-inspector (ASI) of the Mahila Police Station in Jabalpur, and other police officers named as defendants in the complaint went to Anuppur to arrest the appellant and his family.   
• The appellant and his family were residing under the control of the Anuppur Police Station, it is noted.  To arrest the appellant and his family, the first respondent crossed the line into another Police Station's authority.
• The first defendant entered the appellant's Anuppur home along with other police officers. The original appellant began receiving verbal abuse and beatings from the first respondent and other individuals. By grabbing his hair, he was forced to leave his room. 
• The appellant was attacked by the first respondent and other police officers with fists, kicks, and dandas. It is claimed that the appellant lost his balance as a result of his injuries.  The appellant was wearing a gold necklace at the time, weighing around 1.5 tolas, and the first respondent stole it.
• The other police officers beat the younger brother of the original appellant while dragging him to the room of the original appellant.   The other police officers who were with the first respondent attacked him.  After then, the first respondent and co-accused Laxmi removed Rs. 15,000 in cash and four golden jewels from the almirah while brandishing a weapon.
• A mob gathered in front of the appellant's home, and some of them questioned the first respondent's authority.  The crowd and those who were questioning her authority were then intimidated by the first respondent.   The original appellant and other family members were then handcuffed and forced to walk up to the Police Station , where they were imprisoned.  
• The first respondent warned the locals who had come to the police station to inquire about the appellant and his family that if they didn't convince the appellant to give her Rs. 30,000/­, she would torture the people who had been arrested.   Then, the first respondent transported them to Jabalpur, where they were held in custody in the lockup of the Mahila Police Station.
• The first respondent was charged by the learned Magistrate with violating Sections 147, 323, 504, and 506(2) of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC.  The first respondent attempted to have the stated order overturned before the Sessions Court by filing a Revision Application, but his request was denied.     
• The first respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court after feeling wronged by the decisions of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Court.     
• A previous sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was not obtained, hence the High Court proceeded to dismiss the charges brought against the first respondent in the contested decision.

ISSUES RAISED:

 Whether Section 197 is a bar to the prosecution of the police officers in the abovementioned case facts.  

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:

• The learned attorney representing the appellant claims that further investigation into the veracity of the allegations in the complaint filed by the appellant is not appropriate at this time.  
• According to the accusations in the complaint, the first respondent's contested conduct cannot be deemed to have been taken while acting or appearing to act in the course of her official duty, the learned counsel argued.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:

• The learned attorney for the first respondent and the State claimed that the first respondent and other police officers went to Anuppur to arrest the appellant based on the F.I.R. that was filed at the Mahila Police Station in Jabalpur.  So, as part of her official duties, the first respondent paid a visit to the appellant's home.  Whatever the situation, it can be argued that the first respondent pretended to act in the course of her obligations.   As a result, the High Court correctly concluded that the complaint was eligible for dismissal on the grounds that Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. required a penalty.
• The counsel representing the appellant argued that the first respondent had brought up the subject of sanctions in a prior application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court, which was denied on May 17, 2010.  
• Therefore, he argued that the subject of a lack of sanction cannot be addressed at this time.  The counsel representing the first respondent argued that the question of sanctions was specifically left open in the earlier verdict.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

• The High Court ruled that the police officers had exceeded their authority by arresting individuals outside of their jurisdiction without contacting local police for assistance. As a result, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply in this case.
• The High Court concluded that for these reasons, it is not conceivable to draw the conclusion that the complaints' claims, even if read literally and accepted in their whole, would not represent any wrongdoing against the petitioners.    Furthermore, it would be premature to conclude that Section 197 precludes the prosecution of the petitioners' police officers.
• According to the claims made in the complaint submitted by the appellant, it appears at first glance that the first respondent and other police officers illegally entered the appellant's home early in the morning and committed the offenses claimed against them.  
• At this point, it is impossible to say that the first respondent's claimed actions were committed while she was acting—or purported to act—in the exercise of her official duty, given the nature of the complaint's accusations.
• Therefore, Hon'ble Court cannot say at this time that a sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was necessary.   In light of the circumstances, a decision about this matter can only be made after the evidence has been documented.   
• Therefore, there was no justification for the High Court to halt the proceedings at this point on the grounds that a penalty under Section 197 was required.
• In its recent ruling in  Amarjyoti Gogoi and Others vs. The State of Assam and Others, the Gauhati High Court stated that the police can't utilize their uniform as a defense when any claim of unlawful behavior at the police station is made against them.

CONCLUSION:

• In light of this, the contested verdict is overturned, and the learned Trial Court's order to frame charges is reinstated.  Therefore, the appeal is granted.
• The Supreme Court made it plain that the observations and conclusions contained in this judgment are only to be used in restricted circumstances to evaluate a challenge to the High Court's order.  Nothing in this decision should be read as a definitive determination of the merits of the ongoing case, including the question of sanctions.