The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a criminal case against Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) Alok Kumar, who was accused of causing harm and criminally intimidating a woman in 2019 while serving as the acting police commissioner of Bengaluru.

In that context, the Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, "The allegation was intimidation and causing hurt which had left the complainant bruised. If that be so, the complainant need not/should not have waited for three long years i.e., 36 months, to register a complaint, that she had been bruised and intimated by the petitioner three years ago. A perusal at the complaint, which is quoted hereinabove, would clearly indicate not even a speck of explanation is rendered for the delay of three years in registering the complaint. Therefore, permitting even the complaint to be alive would become contrary to law, as it is shrouded with complete improbability. Delay in such cases defeats acts of setting the criminal law in motion."

In this case, a woman approached a police officer, Kumar, to file a complaint against Sister Shalini, who had allegedly intimidated and threatened her to withdraw a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Instead of helping, Kumar allegedly told the woman not to pursue the matter, warning her that Sister Shalini was influential. Kumar is also accused of threatening the woman, saying he would falsely charge her if she returned to his office, and then physically assaulting her.

The woman filed a complaint in 2022, and the Magistrate took cognizance, issuing summons to Kumar a year later. Kumar argued that the alleged offenses were part of his official duties, requiring prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). He also claimed that the complaint was filed three years after the incident, which should invalidate the proceedings due to the delay.

The High Court disagreed with the trial court's decision that government sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was not required. The High Court clarified that sanction is necessary when the alleged acts are connected to the discharge of official duties. The court stated, "If there is no nexus with the acts alleged to the discharge of official duties, sanction would not be required, but if the alleged acts are in the discharge of official duties, sanction would be imperative."

The High Court found that the actions alleged against Kumar, which occurred when the complainant visited his office to file a complaint, were indeed related to his official duties. The court remarked, "If this cannot be held in discharge of official duty, it is ununderstandable as to what else it can be."

As a result, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings initiated against Kumar, citing two key reasons: the absence of the required government sanction when the trial court took cognizance and the unexplained three-year delay in filing the complaint. The court Concluded, "On these two scores, the petition deserves to succeed by obliteration of the order impugned and the entire proceedings, failing which, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice."

Cause Title: Alok Kumar vs Mamatha Singh

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Karnataka High CourtJustice M NagaprasannaCrPC

Ananya Soni