Allowed

Sri. K. M. Harishbabu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2023CRL.P/5981/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings against seven police officials who had filed a criminal petition challenging cognizance taken in another case. It held that prosecution is barred without sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and directed state authorities to decide on the sanction request within ten weeks.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings quashed; sanction consideration to be made within 10 weeks; boost in promotion/increment/benefits barred until then.

Sri. K. M. Harishbabu Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 5981 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5981 OF 2018

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. K. M. HARISHBABU, S/O MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANNARAYAPATNA, CIRCLE, HASSAN DISTRICT-678202.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI C D NARAYANAGOWDA, S/O DODDALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, POLICE CONSTABLE, K R S POLICE STATION, K R S SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-57801.

¶12

SRI T LINGARAJU, S/O THOPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, HEAD CONSTABLE, CHESCOM, VIGILANCE, MANDYA CITY-57801.

¶13

SRI NARAYANA, S/O DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED A.S.I., 1^ST CROSS, V. V. NAGAR, KALLAHALLI, MANDYA CITY-57801.

¶14

SRI K C NAGARAJU, S/O P CHANNAIAH,

¶15

2 - CRL.P No. 5981 of 2018

¶16

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, HEAD CONSTABLE, KERAGODU POLICE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK-57801.

¶17

SRI C K PUTTASWAMY, S/O LATE KEMEPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RETIRED A.S.I., CHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK - 57801.

¶18

SRI IRFANPASHA, S/O RAFIQPASHA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, POLICE CONSTABLE, SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN POLICE STATION, SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA DISTRICT-57801.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI SUHAS B SAPPANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY WEST POLICE STATION, MANDYA, MANDYA CITY, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

SRI KEMPAIAH, S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A SHANKARA NAGARA, NEAR SURVEYOR, KEMPANNA'S THOTADA MANE, MANDYA CITY-57801.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI KIRAN S JAVALI, SPP A/W SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K K, HCGP FOR R1, SRI KEMPAIAH PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R2)

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 5981 of 2018

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, MANDYA DATED 12.03.2018 AT ANNEXURE-D AND THE ORDER OF DISMISSING THE CRL.RP.NO.61/2018 BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MANDYA DATED 07.07.2018 AT ANNEXURE-C.

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioners were all accused in C.C. No.350/2018 pending

¶31

trial before the I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mandya for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 323, 506, 355 read with Section 149 IPC.

¶32

The case of the prosecution was that respondent No.2 herein had filed a private complaint alleging that he tried to serve a warrant upon the accused issued by the Court in C.C. No.655/2013 in respect of an offence which was registered

¶33

at West Police Station, Mandya. He alleged that he was un-necessarily implicated in C.C.No.655/2013 so as to compel

¶34

him to withdraw a case filed by him in C.C.No.210/2014 against some police officials. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 323, 506, 355 and 144 IPC, in terms of an order dated 12.03.2018 and

¶35

4 - CRL.P No. 5981 of 2018

¶36

issued process to the accused. The accused being the officials of the Department of Police have filed this petition primarily contending that respondent No.2 had requested the official superiors of the accused for grant of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute the accused persons and that without obtaining such sanction, respondent No.2 had rushed to the Court and the trial Court had blindly taken cognizance of the offences. He submits that since the acts alleged by respondent No.2 against the accused, was, in the course of performance of their duties, they are protected against prosecution and that they could be prosecuted only after obtaining sanction from their superiors. He also submitted that him had filed Crl.P.No.2244/2014 challenging the cognizance taken against him and this Court had reserved liberty to accused No.5 to file appropriate application before the trial Court seeking discharge on that ground and that accused No.5 had filed appropriate application before the trial Court. He submits that the trial Court after considering the material on record had passed an order allowing the application and directed the complainant/respondent No.2 to obtain sanction from the competent authority as contemplated under Section 197

¶37

5 - CRL.P No. 5981 of 2018

¶38

Cr.P.C. He submits that this order passed by the trial Court is now challenged by 2^nd respondent in Crl.P.3450/2019. He therefore, submits that the proceedings initiated against the accused be set at naught reserving liberty for respondent No.2 to initiate prosecution only after receipt of sanction as contemplated under law.

¶39

Respondent No.2 who has appeared in person submits that he was wrongly implicated in C.C.No.655/2013 though there was several persons carrying the same name and residing in the same village. He submits that the accused had conspired to implicate him in the case so as to compel him to withdraw a case filed against some police official. He submits that he had made a request before the official superiors of the accused seeking for sanction to prosecute them and that the said request was made in the year 2014 and till date, no steps are taken to process the request of respondent No.2.

¶40

The Superintendent of Police, Mandya, who was directed to be present before the Court, who is present-inperson and submits that the Office of the Superintendent of Police had referred the case of respondent No.2 for a report to

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 5981 of 2018

¶43

the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mandya and that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had informed the 2^nd respondent that there was no case against the accused on 27.09.2014. However, this is refuted by respondent No.2 who submits that even after seeking for information under the Right to Information Act about the status of the request for granting sanction, neither the Superintendent of Police nor the Public Information Officer, had furnished any information to him. He therefore submits that the accused have all conspired to ensure that the request for sanction is not also considered.

¶44

The fact that the defacto complainant/respondent No.2 has made a request for grant of sanction to prosecute the accused is evident from a representation filed by him on 28.08.2014. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases, the question whether sanction is necessary or not, has to be determined based on the nature of the act alleged. (State of Maharashtra Vs Dr.BudhiKota Subba Rao (1993) 3 SCC 339) . It is now well settled that without the sanction of the State Government, cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by them, cannot be taken by the Courts. Therefore, the proceedings against the accused cannot continue

¶45

7 - CRL.P No. 5981 of 2018

¶46

until the required sanction is obtained by defacto complainant /respondent No.2 herein. However, it is unfortunate that the request of the 2^nd respondent though filed on 28.08.2014 is not considered till date, despite the direction of the Apex Court in the case of Dr.SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY vs Dr.MANMOHAN

¶47

SINGH & ANR . reported in AIR 2012 SC 1185.

¶48

In that view of the matter, the proceedings against the accused deserves to be quashed on the ground that the prosecution is initiated without the requisite sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. However, respondent No.1/State and the official superiors of the accused are directed to consider the request of the 2^nd respondent for grant of sanction within a period of 10 weeks from today. Until then, respondent No.1 and the official superiors of the accused shall not grant any promotion or increment to the accused and shall also not settle their retirement benefits.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

brn

Sri. K. M. Harishbabu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. M. Harishbabu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thammaiah Vs Sri S Sanjay

Bella Vasanthi @ Vasanthi Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Aravind Rao H T Vs Canara Bank

G S Narayanappa Vs K E Basavraj

The Managing Committee Vs Sibgathulla Khan

Noufal T Vs State of Karnataka