Criminal Writ Petn. No. 1335 of 1989. Case: Ramkrishna Shankar Avhad Vs Rajendra Jagannath Parikh and another. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Writ Petn. No. 1335 of 1989 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ms. Seema Sarnaik, Adv. and For Respondents: R.S. Mohite, Adv. and R.P. Behere, Addl. Public Prosecutor |
| Judges | T. K. C. Das, J. |
| Issue | Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Section 197 |
| Citation | 1997 CriLJ 183 |
| Judgement Date | April 25, 1996 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
-
The petitioner is a police officer who was implicated by the first respondent by filing a criminal complaint dated 12th Nov. 1987 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Niphad. The Magistrate on perusal of the complaint and on examination of the complainant issued summons against the petitioner under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506. 341, 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Indian Penal Code. The complaint discloses that the petitioner was a police officer, and he was performing his duty of checking the vehicles on the road and stopped the vehicle of the first respondent. The petitioner asked the first respondent the licence for verification and on scrutiny of the licence the petitioner demanded money from the first respondent. When the first respondent refused to give money, the petitioner has manhandled the first respondent and as a result the first respondent sustained a fracture injury on his let-t hand.
-
Aggrieved against the issuance of summons, the petitioner filed a criminal revision application being Criminal Application No. 14 of 1985 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Nashik. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik dismissed the revision application of the petitioner. It is in that circumstances the petitioner approached this Court for quashing the proceedings under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. The Counsel for the petitioner mainly argued the previous sanction as envisaged under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been obtained before the complaint was taken cognizance by the Magistrate. The second contention was that even though the alleged offence has taken place on 6-5-1987 at about 8.00 p.m. the complaint was filed in the month of Nov. 1987 beyond six months period as contemplated under Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act. In reply to this contention the learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is not necessary at this stage as the act complained of against the petitioner was not part of his official duty and he will not get any protection under Section 197, Cr.P.C. In order to fortify his argument he has cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Mishra, AIR 1970 SC 1661: ( 1970 Cri L.J 1401) and relied on the observations made by the Supreme Court in para 4 as under.
"The narrow and pedantic construction may...
To continue reading
Request your trial