Obstructing Advocate Commissioners Empowered To Search Police Station Isn’t Official Duty: Telangana HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Police Personnel
The Telangana High Court remarked that the obstruction to the Advocate Commissioners who are empowered to search the police station is not an official duty.
The Court was dealing with a criminal revision case against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) by which it observed that a prima facie case was made out for the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and took cognizance thereof.
A Single Bench of Justice E.V. Venugopal said, “Moreover, as observed in the judgments referred supra, aspect of grant of sanction cannot be determined at the threshold of the case. The concept of Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not get immediately attracted on institution of the complaint case. Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. The necessity may reveal itself in the course of the progress of the case since causing obstruction to the advocate commissioners who were empowered to search the police station cannot be treated as official duty.”
Advocate T. Bala Mohan Reddy appeared for the petitioner in this case.
Brief Facts -
In 2012, a written complaint was lodged by the S.I. of Police stating that while he was performing route bandobusth duty in view of the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh (AP), to inaugurate Kaktiya Utsavalu, and when the convoy reached the hotel, in the meantime, TRS party sympathisers formed themselves into an unlawful assembly. It was alleged that with a conspiracy, they wrongfully restrained the convoy, hurled slogans, and pelted stones on the bus in which CM was travelling, resulting in breaking of wind screens of the bus. Resultantly, a case was registered under Sections 143, 120(B), 341, 427 read with 149 of IPC, Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and under Section 7 (1) of Criminal Law Amendment Act. Consequently, the police apprehended the accused persons.
Apprehending that the police may use third degree upon the accused persons, an Advocate filed a petition under Section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before CJM, requesting the court to issue warrant of search and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner (AC) to search the police station. Accordingly, CJM ordered appointment of two advocate commissioners who found the accused in the police station. When they searched the police station in pursuance of search warrant, the C.I. of Police (petitioner) and other men obstructed them from discharging their duty and instructed them to leave the police station. Thereafter, the police produced the accused before CJM and found that the accused and C.I. (petitioner) wilfully disobeyed the court’s orders by obstructing ACs from producing the accused before CJM. Hence, CJM requested DIG of Police to proceed against the petitioner and being aggrieved, he approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “… the stage of trial has started from the stage of taking cognizance itself. Questioning of obtaining sanction for investigation under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to register a crime under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 Cr.P.C. does not arise and the mandate as claimed by the petitioner under Section 197 Cr.P.C is not applicable. Therefore and under these circumstances this Court does not see any necessity for invocation of Section 197 Cr.P.C.”
The Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das (2006) 4 SCC 584, in which it was held that the shield under Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not extend to illegal, unlawful and high-handed behaviour of public servants.
“In Devinder Singh vs. State of Punjab through CBI9 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities and in such cases sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is not required. The principle laid down in Shamim Khan vs. Debashish Chakrabarty, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no legs to stand in the facts and circumstances of the present case”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision case.
Cause Title- V. Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
