Quashed
Chinnapothula Venkateswarlu, v. Batchu Chennakesava Rao
Telangana HCCRLP/351/2009
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.351 of 2009
DATE:05.08.2010
Between:
Chinnapothula Venkateswarlu and others …… Petitioners And:
Batchu Chennakesava Rao and another
…..Respondents
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.351 of 2009
ORDER :
The petitioners 1 to 3 who are Sub-Inspectors of Police in Railway Police Stations, Chirala, Ongole and Nellore are arrayed as A-1 to A-3 in C.C. No.198 of 2001 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chirala. They are accused of offences punishable under Sections 343 and 365 I.P.C. Even as per allegations in the complaint, A-1 to A-3 along with other police personnel came to house of the victim by name Nagaraju and took him away without disclosing reasons for taking him to his kith and kin and he was taken to railway police station, Nellore and subsequently he was produced before A Magistrate. According to the petitioners, the alleged victim Batchu Nagaraju @ Chanti is having criminal back ground and was involved in many property offences. Even as per allegations in the complaint, the petitioners and others took Nagaraju into custody and he was not manhandled, but was produced in Court via police station. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners were acting outside their official duties. The
petitioners have taken Nagaraju during the course of performing their official duties as Sub-Inspectors of railway police. Therefore, without there being prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. the lower Court should not have taken cognizance of the case against the petitioners.
2) Another surprising thing to be noticed in this case is that the 1st respondent/complainant is not the victim, but is stated to be brother of the victim. It is not known under what authority he was filing the private complaint. It is not as if the victim is not available. Even if the alleged victim is in custody, he could have filed the complaint through prison. It is evident that the private complaint is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and it is devoid of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
3) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.198 of 2001 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chirala in so far as the petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 are concerned.
_______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
August 5, 2010 KSH
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings against police personnel acting in the course of their official duties require prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before cognizance can be taken.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chinnapothula Venkateswarlu and others
Batchu Chennakesava Rao and another
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court