Allowed

Balaram v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC26 Oct 2021CRLMP/939/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition of a police SHO accused under Section 166-A IPC for summoning an aged complainant. The court quashed proceedings, ruling that Section 160 Cr.P.C. protections apply to investigations under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and continuing prosecution was an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition allowed; orders of courts below quashed and set aside; pending proceedings quashed; stay application disposed.

Balaram Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Rajasthan HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 939/2018

¶3

Balaram S/o Shri Bhagiram, The Then Sho, Police Station Ashok Nagar, Police Station (South) Jaipur

¶4

---Accused-Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through PP.

¶7

---Non-Petitioner

¶8

Sitaram Agarwal S/o Late Shri Dhanna Lal, aged about 68 years, R/o B-4-B, Ambawadi, Jaipur.

¶9

--Complainant-Non-Petitioner

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta with Mr. Aniket Sharma & Mr. Tanay Jain For Complainant(s) : Mr. Surkesh Lakhwani and Mr. Ravindra Singh Shekhawat For State : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶12

Order

¶13

26/10/2021

¶14

Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition aggrieved by order dated 20.04.2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan, vide which cognizance was taken against the petitioner under Section 166-A of I.P.C. and against the order dated 06.01.2018 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Sati Cases, Jaipur (Rajasthan), whereby revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner was rejected.

¶15

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that a complaint was filed by the Complainant-non-Petitioner No.2 before the

¶16

(2 of 6)

¶17

[CRLMP-939/2018]

¶18

Judicial Magistrate alleging therein that complainant is more than 65 years of age, still the accused-petitioner summoned him to come to the Police Station for investigation.

¶19

It is also contended that the Court has erred in taking cognizance under Section 166-A of I.P.C., as powers exercised by the petitioner could not be covered under Section 160 Cr.P.C. It is contended that at the time of taking cognizance, the provision of Section 160 Cr.P.C. was not read by the Officer and there is no mention of the same in the order. It is also contended that the revisional Court also did not deal with the provision of Section 160 Cr.P.C. and proviso of Section 160 Cr.P.C. would be applicable only when the investigation is being done under Chapter XII of the Code. It is further contended that taking cognizance against the petitioner is abuse of the process of Court, as petitioner has not disobeyed any direction under the law.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “ Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 185 ”. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on “ Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. vs. State of T.N. & Ors. (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 533 .”

¶21

5 . Counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. It is contended that petitioner has already availed the remedy of revision and second revision is barred under the law and petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained. It is also contended that the proviso to Section 160 Cr.P.C. is applied to all the investigations done by the Police and the same cannot be read only with regard to investigations done after lodging of an F.I.R.

¶22

(3 of 6)

¶23

[CRLMP-939/2018]

¶24

Counsel for the complainant has also placed reliance on the same judgment “ Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau vs. State of Gujarat” (supra).

¶25

It is contended by counsel for the complainant that petitioner had knowledge that complainant was aged more than 65 years, still he disobeyed the directions under the law.

¶26

Counsel for the complainant has drawn my attention towards Section 166(A)(a) of I.P.C. which reads as under:-

¶27

“Whoever, being a public servant-

¶28

(a)knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits him from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or any other, or.”

¶29

It is argued that case squarely falls under Section 166(A)(a) of I.P.C. and Court has not committed any error in taking cognizance against the petitioner who was the SHO at the relevant time.

¶30

I have considered the contentions and have perused the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.

¶31

Section 160 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

¶32

“(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required:

¶33

Provided that no male person [under the age of fifteen years or above the age of sixty-five years or a woman or a mentally or physically disabled person] shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides.

¶34

(4 of 6)

¶35

[CRLMP-939/2018]

¶36

(2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence.”

¶37

Section 160 Cr.P.C. authorizes the Police Officer making an investigation under Chapter XII, to make an order in writing, requiring attendance before himself of any person and the person is required to attend within the limits of his own or any adjoining station, however, he cannot summon an aged person above sixtyfive years or a child or a woman or mentally or physically disabled person. The opening words of Section 160 Cr.P.C. specifically refers to investigation being made under this Chapter (this Chapter here would mean “Chapter XII”) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Contention of counsel for the complainant that Section 160 Cr.P.C. would cover in its ambit, all investigations done by the Police, the letter of law and the spirit of law is to be seen, and the intention of the legislature is that person above the age of sixtyfive years should not be harassed and called to the Police Station for investigation, does not have any force in view of the clear wording of the statute.

¶38

In “ Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. vs. State of T.N. & Ors. ” Apex Court held that while interpreting the provisions, Courts only interpret and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of the law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. The intention of the legislature on bare reading of Section 160 Cr.P.C. is very clear and any investigation done by the Police

¶39

(5 of 6)

¶40

[CRLMP-939/2018]

¶41

Officer under Chapter XII is only covered by it. Proviso to Section 160 Cr.P.C. cannot be applied to Section 202 Cr.P.C., as had it been the intention of the legislature to make this provision applicable to all the investigations, then the use of words ‘under this Chapter’ could have been avoided.

¶42

In “ Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau vs. State of Gujarat” it was held that the power to direct an investigation to Police Authorities is available to the Magistrate both under Sections 156(3) & Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The only difference pointed out by the Apex Court was the stage at which the power may be invoked i.e. power to investigate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is directed at the precognizance stage, while the power to direct a similar investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is at the post-cognizance stage. In the complaint filed by the complainant, the Magistrate had taken cognizance after recording the statement of the complainant and had sent the matter for investigation to the Police Authorities, so the same would come within the ambit of Section 202 Cr.P.C. that is post-cognizance stage.

¶43

Though the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be

¶44

exercised only in rarest of rare cases, the present is clearly the case where Police Officer is being prosecuted for committing an offence under Section 166-A of I.P.C., which offence actually has not been committed, since he has not disobeyed any direction under the law. The continuation of the proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of the law, hence, I deem it proper to allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

¶45

16 Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly allowed.

¶46

(6 of 6) [CRLMP-939/2018]

¶47

Orders passed by the Courts below are quashed and setaside and the proceedings pending before the Courts below are also quashed and set-aside. Stay application stands disposed.

¶48

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶49

AMIT KUMAR /15

Balaram v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaram v. State of Raj and Anr.

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

Ram Mala Wife of Om Prakash, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Avtar Pabdi S/O Ram Kumar Pabdi Vs State

Rinku Choudhary Daughter of Shri Chima Ram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Kumar Son of Late Shri Munshi Ram Tutlani Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramautar S/O Shri Nirbhay, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod S/O Shri Daulatram Vs State of Rajasthan