Trial Court Shouldn’t Have Taken Cognizance Without Previous Sanction Of State Govt.: Kerala High Court Relief To Police Officers Accused Of Assaulting Female Advocate & Husband
The Kerala High Court was dealing with a Petition filed by the accused police officers, seeking to quash the summons issued by the Trial Court.
Justice Kauser Edappagath, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court partly allowed a Petition filed by three Police Officers who are accused of assaulting a female Advocate and her husband in the year 2013.
The Court was dealing with a Petition filed by the serving police officers in the Kerala Police i.e., Circle Inspector of Police at Alappuzha North Police Station; Circle Inspector of Police, Pulincunnu, Alappuzha; and Civil Police Officer at Alappuzha North Police Station.
A Single Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath observed, “… the challenge against the prosecution on the ground that no prosecution sanction was obtained under Section 197 of Cr.P.C must succeed. I hold that the trial Court should not have taken cognizance without the previous sanction of the State Government. The cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 323, 294(b) 339, 352, 354, 354B, 384, 120(b), 204, 211, 503, 509, 500 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act. As per Explanation to Section 197(1), no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under Section 354 or 354B of IPC. Therefore, the cognizance taken for the offences except under Sections 354 and 354B of IPC is liable to be set aside.”
Advocate Harikrishnan M.S. appeared for the Petitioners while Senior Public Prosecutor (SPP) Sreeja V., Advocates George Mathew, and S. Shanavas Khan appeared for the Respondents.
Case Background
The first Respondent was an Advocate by profession and the other Respondents were her husband and daughter respectively. In 2013, an FIR was registered against the Respondent’s husband alleging offence punishable under Section 294(b) of the IPC and Section 117(E) of the Kerala Police Act. As per the allegations, while the Petitioner-police officer was discharging his official duty in connection with a beach festival, Alappuzha, at the main gate of the venue, the Respondent’s husband came in his car and tried to park it in the VIP parking area causing obstacles to other vehicles. Thereupon, the said police officer requested him to part the vehicle at the designated places at police ground but he refused to obey his directions and alleged to have openly abused him. Though he reminded him that he was only discharging his duty and, therefore, he was bound to obey his direction, the Respondent’s husband allegedly verbally abused him again in public in front of the people assembled there to see the festival.
After 12 days of FIR registration, the Respondent filed a private Complaint against the Petitioners before the Trial Court. It was alleged by her that she with her family came to see the beach festival at Alappuzha and when her husband attempted to park the car in front of the beach park on the western side of the beach road in the car parking area, the police officer without any provocation, rushed to them and shouted to take the car from there. It was further alleged that when her husband replied that he was parking car only in the parking area, the police officer verbally abused him which was recorded on mobile phone by the husband. The police officer left the scene and allegedly, he came back with other police officers i.e., the Petitioners and they snatched his mobile phone by force using abusive words and caught hold of his collar and pushed him into the police vehicle by using excessive force.
The Respondent who tried to object to the forceful removal of her husband, was taken into custody and forcefully pushed into the police vehicle. It was alleged that one police officer took hold of her hair while taking her into the vehicle. Thereafter, when the police vehicle reached the police station, fellow Advocates reached there and intervened in the matter. Consequently, the Petitioners returned the mobile phone and key of the car. Allegedly, the Petitioners had destroyed the memory card from the phone. The Trial Court conducted an inquiry and issued summons to the Petitioners under Sections 323, 294(b), 339, 352, 354, 354B, 384, 120(b), 204, 211, 503, 509, 500 read with 34 of IPC and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Hence, the Petitioners sought to quash the summons, arguing that the Trial Court lacked sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) to take cognizance of the complaint.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “The State Government has issued a Notification No. 61155/A2/Home on 06/12/1977 directing that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to all members of Kerala State Police Force charged with the maintenance of Public Order. By the notification mentioned above, the provisions of sub-section (2) have been made applicable to members of Kerala Police charged with 'maintenance of public order' who form a class of the police force.”
The Court noted that the Division Bench in a case has held that “maintenance of public order” can fall within the definition of “law and order”, the former being an extension of the latter. It added that hence, the Petitioners would come within the scope of the notification and be entitled to its protection.
“The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no case under Sections 354 and 354B of IPC had been made out on merits. But there is no such challenge in the original petition. The challenge is only on the grounds of want of sanction”, it further noted.
The Court, therefore, set aside the impugned Order to the extent of taking cognizance against the Petitioners for the offences under Sections 323, 294(b) 339, 352, 384, 120(b), 204, 211, 503, 509, 500 read with 34 of IPC and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
“However, this judgment will not stand in the way of the 1st respondent for approaching the State Government seeking sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The petitioners shall also be free to seek discharge of the offences under Sections 354 and 354B of IPC at the trial Court in accordance with law”, it also clarified.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petition.
Cause Title- Ajaynath & Ors. v. N. Shajitha Beevi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:20255)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Harikrishnan M.S., M.K. Chandra Mohandas, K. Sathiyanandan Pillay, and Shakthi Prakash.
Respondents: SPP Sreeja V., Advocates George Mathew, S. Shanavas Khan, Dipu James, M.D. Sasikumaran, Sunil Kumar A.G., S. Indu, and Kala G. Nambiar.
