Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 999 (ALL)

Chandra Bhushan Tripathi v. State Of U. P.

2019-04-19

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Both these petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order dated 24.7.2007 passed in Case No.2705 of 2007 in Crime No.89 of 2002, under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Sakran, District Sitapur. 2. Initially, Smt. Pushpa Devi wife of Mudrika Singh lodged an F.I.R. on 12.6.2002 at about 10.05 P.M. registered at Crime No.89 of 2002, under Section 304 IPC alleging therein that on 12.6.2002 at around 3.30 PM, her husband Mudrika Singh was present at their house when his employee, Shiv Kumar Maurya had allegedly informed her husband that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Laharpur (petitioner of 3916 of 2008) and Tehsildar, Laharpur (petitioner of 3919 of 2008) along with security force had come and were looking for Mudrika Singh and both the petitioners had abused her husband and security personnel had pointed rifle on her husband. Her husband tried to run away, but fell down on the courtyard and died. It was also alleged that Mudrika Singh died due to mental torture caused by the petitioners, who were posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsildar. 3. Other side of the story as set out in the petition, is that on 12.6.2002 at around 3.30 PM, the petitioners in order to stop the trade of black-marketing of the food-grains on the basis of an information that an illegal purchase and storage of wheat was being done at the mill of Mudrika Singh, reached with the team to the said mill. Mudrika Singh after seeing the raiding party, ran away from the mill. Three employees present inside the mill told the raiding team the person who had escaped, was the owner of the place and his name was Mudrika Singh. 4. On checking the suspected premises, the raiding team found and recovered 466 bags of black-marketed wheat weighing 233 quintols and while the process of recovery and seizure was being conducted, a mob of around 150 people came and attacked the petitioners and their team and caused obstruction in discharge of their official duties. Petitioners and their team were severely beaten up and were illegally confined. Rifles of two security personnel were also snatched by the mob. 5. Petitioners and their team were severely beaten up and were illegally confined. Rifles of two security personnel were also snatched by the mob. 5. One Ram Vilas Gupta, Supply Inspector, managed to escape from the place and lodged an F.I.R. at Crime No.88 of 2002, under Sections 395, 307, 332, 353, 342, 420, 427 I.P.C. with the Police Station Sakran, Sitapur at 4.35 P.M. informing the police about the wrongful confinement of the petitioners. Heavy police force, thereafter, arrived at the house of Mudrika Singh and found the petitioners detained in a room and they were released by the police. The petitioners had sustained serious injuries. The investigating agency after conducting the detailed investigation of the F.I.R. lodged at Crime No.88 of 2002 by Ram Vilas Gupta, found the incident to be correct and true and accordingly filed charge sheet no.48-A dated 24.5.2004 before the court below. 6. It is stated that the F.I.R. by Pushpa Devi was lodged after more than six hours later under Section 302 I.P.C. The investigation of the Crime No.89 of 2002 was handed over to the CBCID and after thorough investigation, the allegations in the F.I.R. were fond to be false and incorrect by the Investigation Officer and a final report was submitted by the CBCID on 10.2.2004 in Crime No.89 of 2002. It is further stated that Mudrika Singh tried to escape and ran away when the petitioners in discharge of their official duty raided the mill of Mudrika Singh and on the way he had fallen down and died. No injury was found on the body of the deceased on post-mortem and the cause of death was asphyxia. 7. The Chief Judaical Magistrate vide the impugned order dated 24.7.2007 has rejected the final report and has summoned the petitioners, who were posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsildar under Section 304 I.P.C. 8. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Kalia, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. Anurag Varma, learned AGA representing the State. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are the public servants and the alleged incident had happened while they were discharging the official duties. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Kalia, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. Anurag Varma, learned AGA representing the State. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are the public servants and the alleged incident had happened while they were discharging the official duties. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the petitioners without there being sanction by the competent authority under Section 197 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the impugned order summoning the petitioners is liable to be quashed at the threshold itself as no Court can take cognizance for an offence without the sanction of the Government/competent authority, if the alleged offence has been committed by a public servant in discharge of his official duties. He also submits that the State Government in its counter affidavit has admitted that since the alleged offence has been committed in discharge of their official duties by the petitioners, it attracts the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Anurag Varma, learned AGA submits that it has to be found out as to what extent and how far the public servant working in discharge of his official duties or whether a public servant has exceeded his limit. He further submits that if the public servant has exceeded his limits in discharge of the public duties and has committed an offence, which was not part of the public duty, then the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. would not be available. He, therefore, submits that at the threshold, this Court should not quash the summoning order, whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face the prosecution. 11. To buttress his submission, Mr. Anurag Varma, learned AGA has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bakhshish Singh Brar v. Gurmej Kaur and another, (1987) 4 SCC 663 . Paragraphs 6 to 8 of the aforesaid judgment read as under :- "6. In the instant case, it is alleged that grievous injuries were inflicted upon the complainant and as a result of injuries one of the alleged accused had died. The question is while investigating and performing his duties as a police officer was it necessary for the petitioner to conduct himself in such a manner which would result in such consequences. It is necessary to protect the public servants in the discharge of their duties. The question is while investigating and performing his duties as a police officer was it necessary for the petitioner to conduct himself in such a manner which would result in such consequences. It is necessary to protect the public servants in the discharge of their duties. They must be made immune from being harassed in criminal proceedings and prosecution, that is the rationale behind Section 196 and Section 197 of the CrPC. But it is equally important to emphasise that rights of the citizens should be protected and no excesses should be permitted. "Encounter death" has become too common. In the facts and circumstance of each case protection of public officers and public servants functioning in discharge of official duties and protection of private citizens have to be balanced by finding out as to what extent and how far is a public servant working in discharge of his duties or purported discharge of his duties, and whether the public servant has exceeded his limit. It is true that Section 196 states that no cognizance can be taken and even after cognizance having been taken if facts come to light that the acts complained of were done in the discharge of the official duties then the trial may have to be stayed unless sanction is obtained. But at the same time it has to be emphasised that criminal trials should not be stayed in all cases at the preliminary stage because that will cause great damage to the evidence. 7. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, in the facts of this case, was proper and the High Court was right in not interfering with the same. We, therefore, dismiss this petition. 8. We, however, direct that the trial should proceed as expeditiously as possible. We further record that if necessary the question of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC may be agitated after some evidence have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge." 12. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties carefully. 13. The CBCID had investigated the offence initially and had found no evidence against the petitioners regarding their involvement in the alleged offence and, therefore, it had submitted the final report in their favour. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties carefully. 13. The CBCID had investigated the offence initially and had found no evidence against the petitioners regarding their involvement in the alleged offence and, therefore, it had submitted the final report in their favour. From the post-mortem report, it is evident that Mudrika Singh had died due to asphyxia as he ran out of breath while running away from his mill when raid was conducted. 14. The petitioners had gone to raid the premises of the deceased in discharge of their official duties. The offence alleged to have been committed by them, was during discharge of their public duties. Provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is incorporated to protect the public servants in discharge of their official duties as they must be immune from being harassed by criminal proceedings and prosecution. The State in its counter affidavit had admitted that in the present case, the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. would be attracted. 15. Considering the counter affidavit of the State, the allegations and the fact that the petitioners had gone to raid the premises of the deceased in discharge of their public duty where the incident happened, they are entitled to protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Since there was no sanction before the summoning order has been issued, I feel it appropriate to quash the impugned order. 16. Thus, both the petitions are allowed and the impugned summoning order dated 24.7.2007 passed in Case No.2705 of 2007 in Crime No.89 of 2002 under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Sakran, District Sitapur is hereby quashed.