Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1951 (RAJ)

Rajesh Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

2012-09-13

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
ORDER Heard. 2. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 11-7-2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No. 85/1996 whereby his application under Section 197, Cr. P. C. has been rejected. 3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur filed a complaint on 15-4-1996 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara under Section 195, Cr. P.C. read with Section 340, Cr. P.C. with the allegation that a complaint had been sent for investigation to P. S. Gangapur under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. from the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur in relation to the offences under Section 420, 380, 381, 407, 411 and 120B, IPC but the same was not returned back after investigation. The complaint filed under the directions of the A. C. J. M. was lodged with the allegations that the concerned police officer-in-charge, Police Station, Gangapur, neither registered the case nor did he submit a report regarding the fate of the complaint sent to the police station from the Court and thus, the officer incharge was liable to be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 166, 175 and 217, IPC. It was also mentioned in the complaint that another complaint for the offences under Sections 417, 448, 427 and 504, IPC also met with the same fate alike the complaint referred to above. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate acting upon the complaint filed, took cognizance and summoned the petitioner, who was the Sub-Inspector & Incharge, P. S. Gangapur, at the relevant time for the offences under Sections 166, 175, and 217, IPC. The petitioner upon appearing before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, submitted an application under Section 197, Cr. P. C. stating therein that he was a police officer and as such, the inaction in registration of the complaint was actually an act covered under the discharge of the official duty and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to benefit of protection of Section 197, Cr. P. C. inasmuch as, no cognizance could be taken against him without prior sanction of the Government. The said application was rejected by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the order impugned. Hence, the instant Misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings of the complaint. 5. P. C. inasmuch as, no cognizance could be taken against him without prior sanction of the Government. The said application was rejected by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the order impugned. Hence, the instant Misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings of the complaint. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case, the petitioner was the incharge of the P. S., Gangapur at the relevant time and, therefore, his prosecution in relation to the acts done or omitted to be done in the discharge of the official duties was not permissible without procuring sanction as per Section 197, Cr. P.C. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of (1) Rajesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2006) 1 SCC 557 : ( AIR 2006 SC 820 ) (2) Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das & Anr. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 584 ( AIR 2006 SC 1599 ) and (3) Lalu Prasad alias Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar through CBI (AHD), Patna. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 49 : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1873) and the decisions of this Court rendered in the cases of (1) Chhagan Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2007 (2) Cr LR (Raj) 1582 and (2) Karamat v. State & Govind Detha. reported in 2007 (2) Cr LR (Raj) 1672. 6. Learned PP has vehemently opposed the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner. 7. Upon having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the material available on the record, it is apparent that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at the P. S. Gangapur. Admittedly, the Sub-Inspector of the police is not a public servant removable from his service by or save with the permission of the State Government. For the purpose of claiming the benefit of Section 197, Cr. P. C., the public servant concerned should be holding such a rank that he is not removable from service save with or by the permission of the State Government or the Central Government as the case may be. Admittedly, the appointing/removing authority of the petitioner is not the State Government. Thus, he cannot claim the benefit of Section 197, Cr. P. C., the public servant concerned should be holding such a rank that he is not removable from service save with or by the permission of the State Government or the Central Government as the case may be. Admittedly, the appointing/removing authority of the petitioner is not the State Government. Thus, he cannot claim the benefit of Section 197, Cr. P. C. Of course, the State Government has issued a circular in the year 1974 whereby all the persons employed as police officers have been given the benefit of the umbrella, Section 197, Cr. P. C. but the said benefit is only available when the police officer concerned is working in discharge of duties involving protection of law and order. The Hon'ble Apex Court considering this aspect of the matter, in the case of Nagraj v. State of Mysore reported in AIR 1964 SC 269 , held that the public servant who is not removable from the office save with or by the sanction of the State Government is not entitled to a protection under Section 197, Cr. P. C. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that Sub-Inspector is not an officer removable by the State Government and thus, no sanction under Section 197, Cr. P. C. was required to prosecute a Sub-Inspector. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :–– "We are not satisfied that the appellant, the Sub-Inspector can be dismissed by the State Government alone. Section 4(c) of the Mysore Police Act, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908), hereinafter called the Act, provides that unless there be something repugnant in the subject or context, the word "inspector" in the Act, subject to such rules and orders as the Government may pass, includes "Sub-Inspector". Section 8 states that the appointment of Inspectors of such grades as Government may from time to time prescribed shall be made by Government and the dismissal of Inspectors of all grades shall vest in Government. It is on the basis of these two provisions that it is submitted for the appellant that it is the Government which can dismiss him as he, though Sub-Inspector, is an Inspector for the purposes of S. 8 of the Act. The contention is not sound. It is the dismissal of Inspectors of all grades which vests in the Government. It appears there are Inspectors of various grades. The contention is not sound. It is the dismissal of Inspectors of all grades which vests in the Government. It appears there are Inspectors of various grades. Inspectors of some grades were appointed by the Government but the dismissal of Inspectors of all grades is vested in the Government. In this context, the word "Inspector" in S. 8 will not include Sub-Inspector as he could not possibly be an Inspector of any grade. Sub-section (1) of S. 26 of the Act further provides that any officer authorised by sub-section (3) in that behalf may dismiss any police officer below the grade of Assistant Superintendent and sub-section (3) provides that subject to the provisions of S. 8, the Inspector-General shall have a authority to punish any Police Officer below the grade of Assistant Superintendent. It follows that the Inspector-General of Police can dismiss a Sub-Inspector who is a police officer below the grade of Assistant Superintendent. No sanction, therefore, of the State Government for the prosecution of the appellant was necessary even if he had committed the offence alleged while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty." 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, since admittedly, the petitioner was not posted as an officer removable from his post save by or with the permission of the State Government at the relevant time, he was rightly denied the benefit of Section 197, Cr. P. C. by the trial Court. The decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, which have been relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, were involving maintenance of law and order and thus, the circular issued by the Government granting the benefit of Section 197, Cr. P. C. came to the rescue of the concerned police officer. The situation in the case in hand is not so and, therefore, the cases cited do not apply to the facts of the instant case and are distinguishable on facts. 9. Resultantly, the instant revision petition fails and is hereby rejected. 10. Stay petition also stands dismissed. Revision dismissed.