Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2138 (RAJ)

Raeesuddin v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-08

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Complainant-Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition aggrieved by order dated 21.04.2017 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jhalawar, whereby Criminal Revision Petition filed by the accused-respondent was allowed and order dated 09.02.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar taking cognizance against the accused-respondent, was set aside. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that complainant-petitioner that complainant, his wife and friend were illegally detained by the Police. They were all subjected to beating and an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) was taken by Respondent No. 2. Complaint was lodged which was referred to Police for investigation. Police after due investigation submitted negative final report and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted negative final report. Revision Petition was preferred by the complainant and the matter was remanded to the Court to again decide the Petition. Thereafter, Protest Petition filed by the petitioner was accepted and cognizance was taken against the accused-petitioner. Accused-respondent preferred a Revision Petition which was allowed and FR was accepted. It is contended that while taking cognizance Court has in detail discussed the role of the respondent. 3. It is contended that the revisional Court also having the same view as having Trial Court but on the ground of sanction order not being produced by the State against the respondent, revisional Court accepted the final report. The limited question before this Court is whether the Police Officers who are respondents in this case are entitled to the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Devinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab through CBI" wherein the Apex Court held that an act of beating a person suspected of a crime of confining him or sending him away in an injured condition, cannot be said that Police at that time were engaged in investigation and the acts were done or intended to be done under the provisions of law. Act of beating and confining a person illegally is outside the purview of the duties. The Court summarized the principle with regard to sanction order in he aforesaid judgment. 5. Counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the same judgment, in addition they have placed reliance on "Suryaveer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Act of beating and confining a person illegally is outside the purview of the duties. The Court summarized the principle with regard to sanction order in he aforesaid judgment. 5. Counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the same judgment, in addition they have placed reliance on "Suryaveer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2012 (5) WLC (Raj.) 547" which was a case where the Officer arrested the complainant and in companions while discharging duties of maintenance of public order. High Court held that prosecution sanction was required as act was done in the final discharge of duty. 6. In the present case in hand, there is specific allegation against the Police Personnel of taking money from the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only), not mentioning the same in the seizure memo and not refunding the amount to the complainant. Statement of complainant under Section 211 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate and Magistrate has in detail discussed the role of the respondents and has taken cognizance against the respondents. Act of the respondents in beating the complainant, taking money to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- from him and not entering in the recovery memo, is an act not done in the official discharge on duties, thus Section 197 of Cr.P.C. in the facts of this case was not mandatory for proceedings against the respondents. Revisional Court has erred in accepting the Revision and setting aside the cognizance order and accepting negative final report. 7. In view of the same, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. Order passed by the revisional Court is set aside and order dated 09.02.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar is upheld. 8. Stay application stands disposed.