R. P. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) (21-8-1999) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14-2-1995 of Shri Rishabh Kumar Jain, C. J. M. Sagar whereby C. J. M. took cognizance of offence punishable under Section 297/34, I. P. C. against the present petitioners and had directed under Section 204, Cr. P. C. against them to stand their trial for the offence. The order was passed on the complaint filed by the two respondents complaining of an alleged offer of indignity by the petitioners and others to the corpse of notorious criminal Raju Munda who was killed in an encounter by police on 30-12-1994 in village Berkhedi, Police Station Rahatgarh. The indignity to the corpse was allegedly offered after the post mortem on the dead body of Raju Munda, by tying the body at an elevated place on the traffic watch tower in a public place in front of main market near Katra Masjid in Sagar from 7 p. m. to 7. 45 p. m. The watch tower was about 20 feet high. The body was exhibited for about 10 minutes on the ground area of watch tower and thereafter when the crowd collected and became ominous the body was tied to the upper portion of the watch tower and hairs of the head were also tied. This was allegedly a cruel and barbarous act of the authorities i. e. the petitioners and others. This hurt the feeling of the complainant/respondents. The authorities should have performed the last rites of the body in the grave yard. Thsi act was a violation of the provisions of Police Regulation Act as also against the administrative manual applicable to the accused (present petitioners) and also violative of the human rights of the deceased and his relatives. This conduct of the accused was in violation of their duties. So there was no necessity for taking sanction by the prescribed authority to prosecute them. The complaint was filed against seven persons i. e. four present petitioners and the District Magistrate Sagar, City Magistrate Sagar and unknown police official. However, cognizance was taken only against the four petitioners who were officers in the police. They were, S. P. ASP, S. D. O. P and S. H. O. of police at the relevant place. The complaint was filed against seven persons i. e. four present petitioners and the District Magistrate Sagar, City Magistrate Sagar and unknown police official. However, cognizance was taken only against the four petitioners who were officers in the police. They were, S. P. ASP, S. D. O. P and S. H. O. of police at the relevant place. ( 2 ) THE contention that Sections 294-A and 295, I. P. C. were also attracted against these accused, was however rejected by the C. J. M. The C. J. M. has observed that tying the body on the watch tower at a public place with a name plate of the deceased hanging around his neck and thus exhibiting it to the public could be called showing dis-respect to the dead body and prima facie it appears that indignity was shown to the dead body. The Magistrate was of the view that after the post mortem examination of the body, it should have been handed over to its next of kin and should not have been tied to watch tower at a public place and in such an exhibiting condition its photos were taken. The Magistrate was of the view that this amounted to offering an insult to dead body in order to wounding the religious feelings of the people. There was the natural effect of the act and therefore, it could be called the purpose of so tying the body to the watch tower. The C. J. M. found that because the four petitioners who were police officials were present at the site at that time, this act muist have been done under their instructions active or passive, but, mere presence of the District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate would not show that it was being done under their orders or they intended this act to be done. The Magistrate presumed that the police officials must have been feeling happy about their success in eliminating this notorious criminal in an encounter and so they could commit such an act, but, not the District Magistrate or the Sub Divisional Magistrate, although they might have been indulgent or negligent in their duties of exercising authority to prevent such an obscene exhibition of the dead body. So no cognizance was taken against those two or any other unknown person. The cognizance was taken against the four petitioners. So no cognizance was taken against those two or any other unknown person. The cognizance was taken against the four petitioners. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitoners has argued that the deceased was a dreaded criminal involved in a large number of various heinous crimes in the area. He attacked the police and resisted his arrest, so was killed in an encounter. The public was so much afraid of him and under consternation that they would not believe that he was dead. So they gathered in large numbers and big crowd had gathered. They wanted to see the body to ensure themselves that such a dangerous criminal was really not alive. So there was a rush of the crowd and the people could not see the body while it was laid on the ground. So in order to show that this criminal was dead and they need not to fear him any further, the body was raised and ultimately had to be raised to height of the watch tower and to keep it there for short time it was roped with the watch tower so that its extremities would not stoop. It was fully clothed and no indignity like kicking it, spitting at it, or stoning was shown by anybody or police officer. Its name was certainly exhibited on the name plate. Photographs were taken by the media. There was no intention to wound the religious feelings of any members of the family of the deceased or his community. The complainants are mere busy body and are in no manner concerned or related to the deceased criminal. The argument further is that whatever was being done by the police officials was to assure the public that a big criminal was now no longer there to endanger their lives. The crowd wanted to see the body and since the crowd wa large it had to be exhibited in an elevated position. There was even a reward announced by the State Government for the arrest of this accused criminal, that is the type of this criminal. It is urged that in fact, after the post mortem on the body of Raju Munda at Rahatgarh, it was brought to Sagar to hand it over to his father. There was even a reward announced by the State Government for the arrest of this accused criminal, that is the type of this criminal. It is urged that in fact, after the post mortem on the body of Raju Munda at Rahatgarh, it was brought to Sagar to hand it over to his father. The father lived in a narrow lane close to the police out post Katra, that is how the body was brought near Katra chowk in a Jeep. The police went to the house of father of Raju Munda and requested him to take over the possession of the body to cremate it. The father declined to do so. He gave his refusal in writing singned by him. This refusal has been filed along with the revision petition. During all this while a large crowd gathered and was surging forward to see the body. The District Magistrate and City Magistrate also reached there. It was not possible to control the mob without exhibiting the body. In these circumstances, the District Magistrate instructed the police to display the body at the tower which was nearby. So some constables put the body at the tower and roped it around the tower. The photographs of the body so exhibited at the tower have been filed. They were proved even by the complaint. After such exhibition without short time, the body was taken down to Rahatgarh for cremation and it was cremated under the supervision of Nagar Panchayat, Rahatagarh as per the certificate filed with the petition. The father of the deceased has also filed an affidavit. ( 4 ) IT is also argued on behalf of the petitioners that the ingredients of the charge under Section 297, I. P. C. is trespass on a burial place. Section 297 is only an extension to Section 295 and the act should be done in burial place or place set up for funeral rites. So it was also argued, that, in these circumstances, there would be no intention or knowledge of wounding the feelings of any person by so exhibition of the body of a notorious criminal. In fact it became necessary to exhibit the body to prevent the law and order situation (sic) to have its glimpse. It is a common feature to display the body of notorious criminals also. In fact it became necessary to exhibit the body to prevent the law and order situation (sic) to have its glimpse. It is a common feature to display the body of notorious criminals also. It is also urged that the petitioners have no hand in tying the body to the watch tower. Some constables carried out that act. ( 5 ) THE affidavit of Gokal father of the deceased, copy of which is placed on record, clearly shows that he had refused to accept the body when the police came to him to offer the body for last rites. The body had been kept at a NASENI at that time. He further urged that there was no indignity offered to the body by the police and the body was exhibited at a high place because large crowd gathered and the police cremated it in his presence when he stayed at Rahatgarh. ( 6 ) THE complainants had examined themselves, who were advocates of Sagar, Ram-shankar Tiwari a newspaper representative, according to whom a crowd of 1000 people had gathered, one Fantoosh Jain a photo-grapher, one Smt. Kavita Shukla, her husband Munna Shukla, one Hemchand Jain of Sagar and Gokal the father of the deceased. They say they were shocked on seeing the body of Rajumunda tied to the tower. They admit that large crowd was there. Some of them say that the District Magistrate and S. P. had ordered such exhibition of the body to the crowd. Photographs show that the body was roped with the tower. ( 7 ) IT appears prima facie acceptable that the body was brought to Sagar, after post mortem examination at Rahatgarh to hand it over to the father of the deceased. Gokal admits that the police people had asked him, but, he was unable to make up his mind what to do, so he went away with his daughter when he was asked to see the dead body. Thus, it is clear, prima facie, that he had refused to accept the dead body and a crowed had gathered. Bringing the body to hand over to father, was a justified act of the police of Rahatgarh. Since a crowd had gathered, it was so huge that police authority and District Magistrate and Sub Divisional Magistrate had come to the spot to prevent (breach of) law and order. Bringing the body to hand over to father, was a justified act of the police of Rahatgarh. Since a crowd had gathered, it was so huge that police authority and District Magistrate and Sub Divisional Magistrate had come to the spot to prevent (breach of) law and order. If the crowd wanted to see the dead body, it had to be exhibited on some elevated position lest the lynched. In these circumstances it was put at the tower, but, there was no indignity shown to the body. It is difficult to accept that in such a situation exhibiting the body of a notorious criminal to crowd, who wanted to be sure about his death, was done with an intention to insult it or to cause indignity to the body. It could have been done to prevent a situation of breach of law and order develop. The argument, that since this criminal must have been a hated person due to his heinous crimes, intention of causing indignity to his body should be inferred, from the act of exhibiting it for satisfaction of crowd cannot be accepted. What is indignity to corpse is not defined anywhere. Indignity is generally synonymous to humiliation or disgrace. A conduct to be criminal in the sence of S. 297, I. P. C. should be spiteful to become humiliating or disgraceful. In a particular situation, an act may not cause disgrace or may not humiliate, but, in other situations that very act may cause disgrace or humilitation. So the intention of the person concerned as well as surrounding circumstances are important factors. ( 8 ) THE relevant portion of Section 297, I. P. C. may be extracted as under :-"297. Trespassing on burial places, etc.- Whoever, with intention of wounding the feelings of any person or of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowlodge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby, commits any trespass in any place of worship or. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . or offers any indignity to any human corpse, or. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . or offers any indignity to any human corpse, or. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . shall be punished with imprisionment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with body. " ( 9 ) NONE of the witnesses has stated that they objected to exhibition of the dead body of Raju Munda or they requested police not to do so. The complainant Gangacharan said that for 10 minutes the body was just kept in a ground on an erect position and since the crowd increased, it was exhibited at height of the tower. ( 10 ) IT is clear that under the prevailing situation, considering the background of the deceased and the curiosity of the crowd, it could not be said that the intention of the police officials was to show indignity to the body. The over powering intention could be to exhibit the dead body to all the public crowd which was in thousands in that narrow area. In the circumstances it can be well accepted that the police was acting with an intention to prevent a law and order situation developing and to that extent they would have been acting under the colour of performance of their duties. 10-A. After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to this Court that the Magistrate should have kept in mind these circumstances from the angle commented upon herein including the possible necessities of the situation to prevent a mishap at the hands of the crowd. Prima facie, it is difficult to accept that offence under Section 297, I. P. C. was 'intended' by any police officials or others. For the same reason it would be said that prosecution of these police officials could not be started without sanction of the prescribed authority under Section 197, Cr. P. C. as their act would be said to be under the colour of discharge of their duties to prevent a law and order situation developing. Nobody has said that all these officials directed to display the body. P. C. as their act would be said to be under the colour of discharge of their duties to prevent a law and order situation developing. Nobody has said that all these officials directed to display the body. Only the complainant had said that the body was first kept at the ground and since the crowd surged in thousands the District Magistrate and S. P. directed the body to be exhibited at the tower. The Magistrate has bifurcated this part. He has inferred differently regarding District Magistrate and differently regarding the S. P. The evidence regarding such direction has not thus been accepted as a whole. The statement regarding alleged ordering by police officers would be liable to same distrust as regarding the District Magistrate or S. D. M. Assuming that the bifurcation of such evidence is permissible. It appears clear that the police were acting under the colour of discharge of their duties to prevent development of ugly law and order situation due to curiosity of the large surging crowd. So this Court is of the view that the prosecution was prohibited without sanction under Section 197, Cr. P. C. The action which are "under colour of discharge of duty" cover much wider field than action 'actually in discharge of duties'. Bona fides, of course is one of the crieria to judge it and in the facts and circumstances of the present case the act of the police officials, whoever involved could be said to be in colour of discharge of their duties bona fidely. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the cognizance of the offence against these petitioners is not permitted without sanction under Section 197, Cr. P. C. nor prima facie case was made out. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The prosecution is quashed. The revision petition is accordingly accepted. Petition allowed. .