Allowed

Mr Revanna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2023CRL.P/3023/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed a criminal prosecution against a police officer for alleged insult and criminal intimidation. The Court held that prosecution for acts under colour of official duty requires prior government sanction under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. It imposed a fine for the submission of a false affidavit.

What did the court decide?

The criminal prosecution (Cr.No.91/2013) against the petitioner was quashed. Liberty was reserved to the respondent to prosecute upon obtaining government sanction under Section 170 of the Karnataka P

Mr Revanna Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3023 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. REVANNA S/O JAVARAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS, R/A CHIKKAARKALGUDU ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573102

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THROUGH GONIBEEDU POLICE STATION, MUDIGERE,

¶15

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU-560001

¶16

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

A.M.PRASANNA KUMAR

¶18

S/O. LATE MANJUNATHA GOWDA,

¶19

AGED 42 YEARS,

¶20

R/A.ECHUVALLI ESTATE, GONIBEEDU, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577132.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM A, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1:

¶23

SRI. A. VIJAYA SAI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶27

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.RP.NO.132/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-J.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner has challenged the investigation launched against him in Cr.No.91/2013 pending consideration before Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere, for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short).

¶31

Respondent No.1 registered Cr.No.91/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC based on a private complaint in PCR No.254/2013 filed by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 alleged that he had filed a private complaint against S.G.Sundaresh which was referred to the Gonibeedu police station who registered crime No.41/2011. He claimed that a constable named Umesh had informed him to keep witnesses present before the police station on 09.12.2012. Accordingly, he alongwith a witness named M.K.Munegowda were at the police station on 09.12.2012 at 4.30 p.m. He claimed that at the police station there was a person on duty named Yogendrachar,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶34

who informed him that Umesh had gone out and would return shortly. At about 5.30 p.m., the petitioner went to the police station and suddenly abused the witness. The respondent No.2 allegedly intervened and informed the petitioner not to abuse or threaten the witness as the case was pending before the Court. He allegedly accused the petitioner of not properly investigating the case and not collecting the material documents and not obtaining a forensic evaluation. He also got a notice issued to the petitioner through his Advocate. He alleged that the petitioner was enraged over it and abused him claiming that he needed no guidance from anybody and that the respondent No.2 should shut his mouth. Respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner claimed that he had secured employment based on his caste and qualification and no one had supported him for that. Petitioner allegedly threatened the respondent No.2 that he would file an atrocity case against respondent No.2 and oust him from the village. he also allegedly threatened to shoot the respondent No.2 if he opened his mouth any further. He thus accused the petitioner of exceeding his power granted to him under law.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶37

He claimed that he lodged a complaint with the SubInspector of Police of Chikmagalur, who in turn referred to the Inspector, Mudigere to investigate. The private complaint was referred to respondent No.1 by the Trial Court under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The respondent No.1 after investigation filed a 'B' report on 06.12.2013. Following this, a notice was issued to the respondent No.2 by the trial court before acceptance of the 'B' report. The respondent No.2 filed his objections against the acceptance of 'B' report, following which, the Trial Court recorded the sworn statement of respondent No.2 and his witnesses and in terms of the order dated 14.01.2019, dismissed the private complaint lodged by respondent No.2 and accepted the 'B' report filed by respondent No.1. This was challenged by the respondent No.2 in Crl.R.P.No.132/2019 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur. The Sessions Court in terms of the order dated 21.03.2020, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order accepting the 'B' report and remitted the case back to the trial court with a direction to issue summons to the petitioner by registering a criminal case for the offences punishable

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶40

under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and then proceed in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶41

Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner is liable to be set at naught, in view of the bar contained in Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (henceforth be referred to as 'K.P.Act' for short). In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶42

D.Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain - (2020) 7 SCC

¶43

695. He further submits that the respondent No.2 is a rowdy-sheeter at the respondent No.1 and that the respondent No.2 is in the habit of lodging such false and frivolous cases and therefore, the instant investigation has to

¶44

be halted.

¶45

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the claim of the petitioner that he is protected under Section 170 of the K.P. Act is not maintainable, as the act complained off against the respondent No.1 did not fall within the ambit of Section 170 of the K.P.Act. He further contended that the

¶46

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶47

petitioner had filed a false affidavit along with the application for stay, wherein it was shown that the petitioner had come to Bengaluru to swear to the contents of the affidavit, while the information furnished by the Police Inspector, Alur Police Station, showed that the petitioner had not availed leave between 28.06.2020 and 30.06.2020. He further contends that this petition is not filed by the petitioner in his capacity as Inspector but is filed in his individual capacity. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable.

¶48

I have considered the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶49

A perusal of the private complaint lodged by respondent No.2 discloses that the respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint before respondent No.1 against the person named S.G.Sundaresh which was registered as Cr.No.41/2011, pursuant to an order passed by the Court in PCR No.56/2011 referring the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He claimed that for the purpose of investigation of the case, a constable

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶52

named Umesh had directed the respondent No.2 to keep a witness named Menase Gowda present in police station on 09.12.2012. Accordingly, respondent No.2 along with Menase Gowda went to the police station at 04:30 p.m.

¶53

He claimed that he was informed by a person named Yogendrachar who was present in the police station that Umesh had gone out and that he would return shortly. The respondent No.2 and the witness were waiting at the police station. At about 05:30 p.m., the petitioner arrived at the police station and suddenly abused the witness using abusive language. Respondent No.2 intervened and asked the petitioner not to abuse or threaten the witness and informed him that the matter is pending before the Court. He alleged that the petitioner was not properly investigating the case and that he was not collecting the relevant documents and not sending the same to the forensic laboratory. The respondent No.2 had allegedly got a notice issued to the petitioner and respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner being enraged, chided him not to give any instructions or guidance and that he should shut his mouth. He also

¶54

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶55

threatened that he would register a case under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the respondent No.2 and throw him out of the village. He also alleged that the petitioner threatened to shoot him if he opened his mouth any further. He alleged that the petitioner did not record the statement of witnesses and intentionally did not investigate the case. He alleged that the petitioner was supporting the accused in Cr.No.41/2011. He claimed that he lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Chikkmagalur on 10.12.2012, who inturn referred the same for enquiry before the Circle Inspector of Police Mudigere. He alleged that the Circle Inspector, Mudigere without holding an enquiry or investigation issued a false endorsement dated 12.12.2012.

¶56

The aforesaid private complaint therefore, disclosed that the petitioner was the person in-charge of investigation of Cr.No.41/2011 and who was supposed to record the statement of the witnesses. The respondent No.2 had accused the petitioner of not "properly investigating the

¶57

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶59

case" and therefore, he had got a notice issued to the petitioner through an advocate. He further stated in the private complaint that accused has not recorded the statement of witnesses. The accused has intentionally not investigating the above said case, instead he is supporting Sri. S.G.Sundaresh who is an accused in Cr.No.41/2011. In this way, petitioner had abused and threatened the respondent No.2 and the witness and thereby petitioner was accused of exceeding his power granted to him under law.

¶60

It is thus evident that the petitioner in his capacity as an investigating officer had allegedly abused his position by abusing the witness and in not recording his statement. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act,1963 which reads as follows:

¶61

"170 . Suits or prosecution in respect of acts done under colour of duty as aforesaid not to be entertained without sanction of Government .—(1) In any case of alleged offence by the Commissioner, a Magistrate, Police Officer or Reserve Police Officer or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such

¶62

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶63

Commissioner, Magistrate, Police Officer or Reserve Police Officer or other person, by any act done under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid, or wherein it shall appear to the Court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained except with the previous sanction of the Government.

¶64

(2) In the case of an intended suit on account of such a wrong as aforesaid, the person intending to sue shall be bound to give to the alleged wrongdoer one month’s notice at least of the intended suit with sufficient description of the wrong complained of, failing which such suit shall be dismissed.

¶65

(3) The plaint shall set forth that a notice as aforesaid has been served on the defendant and the date of such service, and shall state whether any, and if so, what tender of amends has been made by the defendant. A copy of the said notice shall be annexed to the plaint endorsed or accompanied with a declaration by the plaintiff of the time and manner of service thereof."

¶66

A perusal of the aforesaid provision would indicate that if an offence is committed by a Police Officer,

¶67

11 -

¶68

NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶69

under colour or in excess of such duty or authority, the prosecution shall not be entertained except without the previous sanction of the government.

¶70

In the case on hand, since the petitioner was the person who was supposed to record the statement of witnesses, he was indeed protected against any prosecution by virtue of Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and no prosecution could have been launched against the petitioner without the previous sanction of the State Government. The judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in the case of D.Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain - (2020) 7 SCC 695 is apposite and the relevant paragraphs are extracted below:

¶71

"66. Sanction of the Government, to prosecute a police officer, for any act related to the discharge of an official duty, is imperative to protect the police officer from facing harassive, retaliatory, revengeful and frivolous proceedings. The requirement of sanction from the Government, to prosecute would give an upright police officer the confidence to discharge his official duties efficiently, without fear of vindictive

¶72

12 -

¶73

NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶74

retaliation by initiation of criminal action, from which he would be protected under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. At the same time, if the policeman has committed a wrong, which constitutes a criminal offence and renders him liable for prosecution, he can be prosecuted with sanction from the appropriate Government.

¶75

67. Every offence committed by a police officer does not attract Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. The protection given under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act has its limitations. The protection is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and official duty is not merely a cloak for the objectionable act. An offence committed entirely outside the scope of the duty of the police officer, would certainly not require sanction. To cite an example, a policeman assaulting a domestic help or indulging in domestic violence would certainly not be entitled to protection. However, if an act is connected to the discharge of official duty of investigation of a recorded

¶76

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶77

criminal case, the act is certainly under colour of duty, no matter how illegal the act may be.

¶78

68. If in doing an official duty a policeman has acted in excess of duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the fact that the act alleged is in excess of duty will not be ground enough to deprive the policeman of the protection of the government sanction for initiation of criminal action against him.

¶79

69. The language and tenor of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act makes it absolutely clear that sanction is required not only for acts done in discharge of official duty, it is also required for an act purported to be done in discharge of official duty and/or act done under colour of or in excess of such duty or authority.

¶80

70. To decide whether sanction is necessary, the test is whether the act is totally unconnected with official duty or whether there is a reasonable connection with the official duty. In the case of an act of a policeman or any other public servant unconnected with the official duty there can be no question of sanction. However, if the act alleged

¶81

14 -

¶82

NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶83

against a policeman is reasonably connected with discharge of his official duty, it does not matter if the policeman has exceeded the scope of his powers and/or acted beyond the four corners of law.

¶84

71. If the act alleged in a complaint purported to be filed against the policeman is reasonably connected to discharge of some official duty, cognizance thereof cannot be taken unless requisite sanction of the appropriate Government is obtained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act."

¶85

Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner without the previous sanction of the State Government was improper and the Revisional Court could not have directed the prosecution of the petitioner.

¶86

In that view of the matter, the prosecution deserves to be halted. Consequently this petition is allowed and the impugned prosecution of the petitioner in Cr.No.91/2013 (PCR No.254/2013) pending trial before Senior Civil Judge

¶87

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶88

and JMFC, Mudigere, for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC is quashed.

¶89

However, liberty is reserved to the respondent No.2 to initiate prosecution of the petitioner after obtaining the sanction as provided under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

¶90

Before parting from the case, as rightly contended by respondent No.2, the petitioner has sworn to the false affidavit accompanying the application for stay, wherein, he has disclosed that he had come down to Bengaluru to swear to the contents of the affidavit. The petitioner is a SubInspector of Police and therefore his movements have to be properly recorded in the movement register or in the Station House Dairy. If the petitioner had sworn to an affidavit in Bangalore while being at the headquarters, it is indeed an act of perjury. This also could affect investigation undertaken by the petitioner in other cases on the day the affidavit was sworn. Though this Court does not propose to initiate serious action against the petitioner, yet in order to deter such further acts, it is appropriate that the petitioner is visited

¶91

NC: 2023:KHC:33216 CRL.P No. 3023 of 2020

¶92

16 -

¶93

with fine of Rs.10,000/- payable to Taluka Hospital at Gonibeedu within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶94

Sd/JUDGE

¶95

¶96

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Mr Revanna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Revanna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T Keshav Prasad Vs M N Doreswamy

Sri Ravi Shankar Jha Vs State of Karnataka

Noorulla Hassan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. G. Lakshman Singh Vs Kum. Neha @ Rakshita

Mr. Gopal B Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. C.Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka