Devendra Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.579 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.21 of 2018)

Devendra Prasad Singh ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Bihar & Anr. ….Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final

judgment and order dated 09.08.2017 passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. M. No. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by 35751 of 2014 whereby the High Court allowed the ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2019.04.02 17:57:28 IST

application filed by respondent No.2 herein under Reason:

1

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.) and quashed

the order dated 21.01.2014 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate 1st class, Patna in Complaint Case No.

1063 (c) of 2013 by which the Magistrate had taken

cognizance of the complaint filed by the appellant

herein against respondent No. 2 for commission of

the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341,

379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).

3. A few relevant facts need mention hereinbelow

for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a

short point.

4. The question, which arises for consideration in

this appeal, is whether the High Court was justified

in quashing the complaint filed by the appellant

(complainant) against respondent No. 2 holding that

there was no prima facie case made out against

2 respondent No. 2 for issuance of the process of the

summons to him for commission of the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 341, 379 and 504

IPC.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are constrained to allow the appeal, set aside the

impugned order and restore the aforementioned

complaint case to its file for being proceeded with on

merits in accordance with law.

6. In other words, we are of the view that the

High Court was not justified in quashing the

aforementioned complaint filed by the appellant

herein against respondent No. 2. It should have

been tried on merits in accordance with law.

7. The High Court quashed the complaint

essentially on two grounds; First, no sanction under

Section 197 of the Cr.P.C was obtained by the

3 prosecution for filing the complaint against

respondent No. 2 and the second, there are

contradictions in the statement of the complainant

and the witnesses.

8. In our view, both the grounds, which found

favour with the High Court for quashing the

complaint, are not well founded and hence legally

unsustainable.

9. So far as the first ground is concerned, we

have perused the complaint filed by the appellant

against respondent No. 2. Having regard to the

nature of the allegations made by the complainant

against respondent No. 2, who was the Police

Officer(SHO) at the relevant time, we are of the view

that no prior sanction to prosecute respondent No.

2 under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was required for

filing such complaint.

4

10. In other words, it cannot be contended that

respondent No. 2 committed the alleged offences

while acting in discharge of his official duties or

while purporting to act in discharge of his official

duties so as to attract the rigor of Section 197 of the

Cr.P.C.

11. In our view, in order to attract the rigor of

Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., it is necessary that the

offence alleged against a Government Officer must

have some nexus or/and relation with the discharge

of his official duties as a Government Officer. In this

case, we do not find it to be so.

12. So far as the second ground is concerned, we

are of the view that the High Court while hearing

the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of

the witnesses and record a finding that there were

inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore,

5 there was no prima facie case made out against

respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done

only in the trial while deciding the issues on the

merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding

the appeal arising out of the final order passed by

the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C.

proceedings.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow

the appeal, set aside the impugned order and

restore the aforementioned complaint case to its

original file for being proceeded with on merits in

accordance with law.

14. We, however, make it clear that we have not

set out the facts of the case in detail and nor have

recorded any finding on facts either way else it

would have caused prejudice to the parties in the

trial.

6

15. The Magistrate will proceed with the complaint

and decide the same strictly in accordance with law

on merits without being influenced by any

observations made by the High Court in the

impugned order and in this order.

………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

....……..................................J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi;

April 02, 2019.

7