Government Employees No Different From Other Citizens: Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders Inquiry Against Cops Accused Of Outraging Modesty Of Woman

The Himachal Pradesh High Court while allowing for continuation of inquiry ordered by Trial Court against Police Officers accused of outraging modesty of a woman has observed that State cannot treat Government Employees differently from citizens and cannot protect them from prosecution.

The Court was considering a Criminal Revision Petition preferred by the State against an order of the Trial Court whereby inquiry into a case registered against Police Officers for offences punishable under Section 332 (c), 126 (2), 115 (2), 351 (2) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was ordered.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Virender Singh observed, "....crime is always committed against the State and not against a particular person. The person, against whom, the offence is committed, is a victim, who, suffers at the hands of the offenders and the State prosecutes against such offenders. Even, Article 14 of the Constitution of India is based upon the golden principle that every person is entitled to equality before law or the equal protection of the laws. The State cannot discriminate between the Government employees and ordinary citizens. State cannot protect a person against whom an offence has been alleged and the competent Court of law has passed the direction to the competent authority to inquire into the matter."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Varun Chandel.

Facts of the Case

The Trial Court, via the impugned order, ordered the SHO to investigate the matter, in accordance with law and whereas, proforma Respondents No. 2 and 3 opted not to assail the said order, the State preferred the present Criminal Revision. The question of maintainability of the Petition thus arose.

Reasoning By Court

The Court, at the outset, observed that administration of justice is one of the essential functions of the State and law and order within the State is to be maintained through the administration of justice and citizens are made to realize the existence and importance of the State.

It thus emphasized that the State cannot discriminate between the Government employees and ordinary citizens and thereby cannot protect a person against whom an offence has been alleged and the competent Court of law has passed a direction to the competent authority to inquire into the matter.

"When, respondent No. 1-Anu Bala alleged offences against the two individuals, who, at the relevant time, were posted as police official at Police Post Rehan, Police Station Nurpur and the competent Court of law has passed the order, dated 20th January, 2025, directing the SHO to investigate the matter, in accordance with law, then, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Criminal Revision, which has been filed, by the State, is not maintainable, as, from no stretch of imagination, the State can be said to be the ‘aggrieved person’ to assail the order, passed by the learned trial Court, as, no direction has been issued, in the said order, against the State", the Court observed.

The Court also clarified that Clause 3 (c) (ii) of the Notification, dated 25th May, 1971, issued by the Home Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh provides that the State may decide to conduct cases on behalf of such officers, who are serving under the State Government, but, on the basis of this provision, it cannot be said that the golden principle that crime is always against the State, is liable to be ignored.

"Merely, since, the proposed accused persons are Government servants, will not give an authority to the State to assail the order, passed by the learned trial Court, against the proposed accused persons, by way of filing the Criminal Revision, before this Court", the Court observed.

It also rejected reliance placed on the instructions, dated 25th October, 2005, issued by the Law Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh and further observed, "The State cannot take advantage of even these instructions, to assail the order, on behalf of the persons, against whom, the accusation has been made by respondent No.1-Anu Bala, the alleged victim, on whose complaint, the competent Court of law, has decided to inquire against the alleged offenders, only on account of the fact that said offenders happen to be the Government servants."

The Petition was accordingly rejected as non-maintainable.

Cause Title: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Anu Bala and others (2025:HHC:25617)

Click here to read/ download Order