Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 808 (JHR)

Krishna Murari v. The State of Jharkhand

2011-08-25

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2011
JUDGMENT: This application has been filed against the order dated 1st 10.01.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 1362 of 2007 whereby he took cognizance against the petitioner under sections 341, 323, 385 and 504 of the IPC. 2.It appears that O.P. No. 2 (complainant) filed a complaint petition alleging therein that on 18.8.2007 accused/petitioner forcibly entered in his house and demanded Rs. 20,000/-as Rangdari. It is further alleged that on refusal of complainant, accused/petitioner abused and assaulted him with fist. It is then alleged that thereafter accused/petitioner took out Rs. 10,000/-from the pocket of complainant on the point of revolver. It is also alleged that at the time of retreat, accused/petitioner threatened that if the matter would be reported to any higher authority, then complainant will be killed. 3. It appears that in support of aforesaid allegation complainant examined himself on S.A. and supported all the allegations. It further appears that two witnesses also examined during enquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. in support of complaint case. 4. The learned court below considered the materials available on record concluded that prima facie, offenses under section 341, 323, 385 and 504 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, he issued processes for appearance of petitioner. 5. It is submitted by Sri Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is Officer-in-Charge of a police station , therefore, he cannot be prosecuted without previous sanction of State Government. It is further submitted that prior to filing of the present complaint petition, one Sunita Munda filed a written report to the Superintendent of Police , East Singhbhum and on the basis of said written report petitioner lodged Persudih P.S. Case No. 102 of 2007 dated 13.7.2007 under section 341, 329, 427, 354 , 504 of the IPC and also under section 3 (iv) (ix) of the Scheduled Cast /Scheduled Tribe( Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is submitted that the complainant has filed the present criminal case against the petitioner with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance with a view topressurize him to withdraw aforesaid criminal case filed against complainant. Accordingly, it is submitted that impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. It is submitted that the complainant has filed the present criminal case against the petitioner with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance with a view topressurize him to withdraw aforesaid criminal case filed against complainant. Accordingly, it is submitted that impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. On the other hand, learned APP and Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2, submit that petitioner is a police inspector and as per Jharkhand Police Manual, he can be removed from the service by Inspector General of Police or Deputy Inspector General of Police . Thus, as per section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure previous sanction of State Government not required for prosecuting petitioner. It is further submitted that Sunita Munda filed a written report before the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum and on the direction of Superintendent of Police case registered against complainant. It is submitted that said case is investigated by Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is submitted that it is an admitted position that petitioner has no control over Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thus, the question of falsely implicating petitioner with a view to pressurize him, to get the aforesaid criminal case closed and/or withdrawn, does not arise. It is submitted that from the perusal of material available on record, prima facie, offences enumerated in the impugned order are made out against petitioner, hence impugned order require no interference by this Court. 7. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. It is admitted position that the petitioner is a police Inspector. Rule 824 of Jharkhand Police Manual provides different punishments including punishment of dismissal or removal from services which can be inflicted departmentally on a police officer of the rank of Inspector. Rule 825 (b) (c ) provides that a Police Inspector can be dismissed and/or removed from the service by Inspector General of Police or Deputy Inspector General of Police. There is no provision in the said Rule which make it imperative upon the Inspector General of Police or Deputy Inspector General of Police to pass order of dismissal and/or removal after taking approval from the State Government. Under the said circumstance, I conclude that Police Inspector can be removed from service by I.G. Police or D.I. G Police without obtaining any approval from the State Government. Under the said circumstance, I conclude that Police Inspector can be removed from service by I.G. Police or D.I. G Police without obtaining any approval from the State Government. Section 197 (1) ( a) & (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows:- 197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.-(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction- (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: [Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause ( b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression “State Government” occurring therein, the expression “ Central Government” were substituted] From perusal of aforesaid provision, it is clear that if the public servant is removable by or with the approval of the State Government, then only previous sanction of State Government is necessary for prosecuting him. In the instant case, as noticed above, for removing the petitioner from service, approval of State Government is not necessary and he can be removed by the order of Inspector General of Police and/or Deputy Inspector General of Police. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 8. Now coming to the second point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is wroth mentioning that the FIR lodged against complainant on the basis of written report made by one Sunita Munda before the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 8. Now coming to the second point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is wroth mentioning that the FIR lodged against complainant on the basis of written report made by one Sunita Munda before the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum. It then appears from the FIR itself that Dy S.P. Sri. D.K. Srivastava was requested to investigate it. It is admitted that petitioner has no administrative control over Deputy Superintendent of Police. Under the said circumstance, when the petitioner has no control over the investigation of aforesaid criminal case against the complainant, the question of false implication of petitioner in the present case with ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance against petitioner does not arise. Moreover in the complaint petition, complainant had not alleged anything against Sunia Munda on whose written report , criminal case lodged against him. This also shows that the complainant had no intention to lodge case against petitioner in retaliation of criminal case lodged against him because if he had such intention then he would have implicated Sunita Munda also in this case. Thus the second ground of attack on the impugned order also not acceptable. 9. From perusal of complaint petition, statement of complainant on S.A, I find that prima facie, offences as enumerated in the impugned order is made out against him. 10. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. is dismissed.