Police Must Enquire Into Matter Before Registering FIR Against Public Servant Accused Of Offence Committed In Discharge Of Official Duty: Jharkhand HC

Justice Subhash Chand held, “Herein it would be pertinent to mention that the accused is a public servant and while lodging F.I.R. against a public servant in regard to commission of any offence during discharge of his official duties, the police officer is duty bound to enquire into the matter before registering the F.I.R. The object behind this is only that there may not be frivolous or harassing allegations against any public servant with any ulterior motive or with any object of extortion.”

The ruling stemmed from a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahebganj, in a case related to alleged sexual assault. The petitioner, a public servant named Subodh Babu, was accused of assaulting a woman at the Employment Exchange Office in Sahebganj.

The case revolved around a written complaint filed by the informant, who was also the victim. She alleged that on the morning of November 26, 2009, she visited the Employment Exchange Office in Sahebganj, where she encountered Subodh Babu, the Head Clerk and the accused in the case. According to her complaint, Babu demanded a favor from her and proceeded to sexually assault her against her will.

A case was registered against the accused, Subodh Babu, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on this complaint. During the legal proceedings, the petitioner's senior counsel argued against the lower court's decision, highlighting the disregard of crucial medical evidence that showed no signs of rape or injuries on the victim's body. Additionally, a significant inconsistency in the informant's statement was brought to the court's attention, casting doubt on the timeline of events she described.

During the court proceedings, the petitioner's senior counsel argued vehemently against the validity of the lower court's decision, claiming it to be legally and factually flawed. He contended that the trial court had disregarded the petitioner's innocence, ignoring the baseless accusations leveled against him.

According to the counsel, the police had concluded their investigation and filed a Final Report. However, the informant lodged a protest-cum-complaint petition on September 28, 2010, prompting the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahebganj, to take cognizance under Section 376 of the IPC. Against this cognizance, the petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition in the High Court. The High Court quashed the previous order, instructing the Chief Judicial Magistrate to reevaluate the case based on the available evidence.

Subsequently, the S.D.J.M., Sahebganj, once again took cognizance under Section 376 I.P.C. The petitioner, dissatisfied with this order, filed another criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court. However, the High Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that its decision was solely on the legality of the cognizance order and not on the case's merit. The trial court was specifically directed to assess the case impartially, devoid of any prejudice from the High Court's observations.

The senior counsel emphasized that the trial court had disregarded crucial medical evidence, which showed no signs of rape or any external or internal injuries on the victim's body. Despite this, the trial court refused to entertain the petitioner's discharge application.

Furthermore, the counsel pointed out a significant inconsistency in the informant's statement. While she claimed to have reached Sahebganj at 10:00 a.m. by Dhulian passenger train in the F.I.R., the Railway Station certificate indicated that the train had arrived at Sahebganj at 12:10 p.m. on the day of the incident. This raised doubts about the informant's ability to reach the Employment Exchange Office by 1:00 p.m., as alleged in the complaint.

The Court meticulously examined the allegations outlined in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and considered it necessary to review the evidence gathered by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) during the investigation.

After a comprehensive analysis of the case's facts and circumstances, the Court stated,, “In the case in hand, the police officer without making any inquiry in regard to the allegations made by the victim straightaway registered the F.I.R against the accused, though the investigating officer after concluding the inquiry found no charge against the accused and submitted the final report.”

“But the learned S.D.J.M., Sahebganj took cognizance on the same under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. relying upon the testimony of the victim, her friend and peon as well. The learned trial court had erred while taking cognizance and also while disposing of the discharge application of the petitioner without looking into the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C.,” the Court added.

While expounding on Section 197 of the CrPC, the court clarified that the Magistrate while taking cognizance or framing charge is required to direct the investigating officer of the case to obtain the prosecution sanction while disagreeing with the conclusion drawn by the I.O. during investigation.

The Court noted the victim's claim that she had gone to obtain a new employment registration card to replace the old one. It emphasized that the purpose of prosecution sanction for a public servant is to shield them from baseless and retaliatory criminal proceedings, allowing them to perform official duties without harassment.

The Court noted, “In the present case, since, the accused is a public servant, the F.I.R. was lodged without any prior enquiry and after investigation, the I.O. filed the final report. Thereafter the court concerned took cognizance on the evidence collected by the I.O. The magistrate concerned had not taken into consideration that the requisite prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not obtained till date of framing charge.”

In view of the above the Court held that the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahebganj was unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same was set aside. Accordingly, the criminal revision was, hereby, allowed and the petitioner was discharged from the alleged offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C.

Counsel/s For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate

Counsel/s For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.

Counsel/s For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 71

Case Title: Subodh Bara Babu @ Subodh Kumar Yadav vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr

Case No.: Cr. Revision No.667 of 2022

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement