A single judge bench of
Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the proceedings which were initiated under sections 34, 120A, 166A, 323, 325, 351 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on a private complaint filed by Mamatha Singh.
It said, “
The complainant need not/should not have waited for three long years i.e., 36 months, to register a complaint, that she had been bruised and intimated by the petitioner three years ago. A perusal at the complaint, would clearly indicate not even a speck of explanation is rendered for the delay of three years in registering the complaint. Therefore, permitting even the complaint to be alive would become contrary to law, as it is shrouded with complete improbability. Delay in such cases defeats acts of setting the criminal law in motion.”
As per the complaint, the woman had approached Kumar to file a complaint against one Sister Shalini for intimidation and threats to withdraw a pending case filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. However, Kumar allegedly insisted upon the complainant not to press the matter on the score that Sister Shalini was an influential person. It is alleged that Kumar threatened the complainant that next time if she steps into the office, he will book a false case against her and make her run from pillar to post and he along with other police personnel assaulted the complainant in his office.
On receipt of the complaint in 2022, the Magistrate court took cognizance and one year later issued summons to Kumar.
Kumar argued that the offences so alleged is in the discharge of his official duties and as such, sanction under Section 197 CrPC would be imperative. He further pointed that there is unexplained delay of three years in filing the complaint, which would vitiate proceedings.
Refusing to accept the trial court findings that sanction from government under Section 197 CrPC is not required, High Court said,
“
If there is no nexus with the acts alleged to the discharge of official duties sanction would not be required, but if the alleged acts are in the discharge of official duties sanction would be imperative. The facts narrated in the complaint, would leave none in doubt that the actions alleged are all in the discharge of official duty of the petitioner, as the complainant is said to have visited the office of the petitioner to register a complaint and at that point in time it is alleged that the petitioner had threatened the complainant. If this cannot be held in discharge of official duty, it is ununderstandable as to what else it can be.”
Allowing the petition and quashing the proceedings initiated, the court said, “
The aforesaid two factors, one of sanction not being in place as on the date of taking cognizance by the concerned Court and the delay of three years in registering the complaint, completely unexplained, would cut at the root of the matter. On these two scores the petition deserves to succeed by obliteration of the order impugned and the entire proceedings, failing which, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.”
HEADNOTE:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 482—Quashing of Proceedings—Petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated on a private complaint filed alleging criminal intimidation and causing hurt—Held, complainant should not have waited for three years to register a complaint. No explanation rendered for delay. Defeats acts of setting the criminal law in motion- Petition allowed. (Para 15)
Section 197—Requirement of Sanction to prosecute—Trial court had held that sanction not required as it was a case of criminal intimidation and causing hurt—Held, facts show that the actions alleged are in discharge of official duty of the petitioner, as the complainant is said to have visited the office of the petitioner to register a complaint and at that point in time it is alleged that the petitioner had threatened the complainant. (Para 14)
Appearance: Senior AdvocatePrabhuling K Navadgi for Advocate Swaroop S for petitioner.
HCGP Harish Ganapathi for Respondent
Case Title: Alok Kumar v. Mamatha Singh
Citation No: 2024 Live Law (Kar) 368