Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1088 OF 2023
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.4517 of 2019)
DR. S.M. MANSOORI (DEAD) THR. L.R. …APPELLANT
versus
SUREKHA PARMAR & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel
1.
appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel
appearing for the private respondents as well as for the
State.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 200 of
2.
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’)
in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (First
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2023.04.12
16:55:41 IST
Reason:
Class) at Anuppur. Cognizance of the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 323, 342, 504 and 506B
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page 1 of 9
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) was taken
by the learned Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the
complaint.
The original appellant was the complainant. The
3.
appellant (1.1) – Dr. Mushtaq Mansoori is the son of the
original appellant. Dr. Mushtaq was married to one
Mehjabi Anjum. On the basis of a complaint filed by
th
Mehjabi on 18 January 2000, a First Information Report
(F.I.R.) was registered by Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur
against the appellant and their family members for the
offences punishable under Section 498A, and Section
506 read with Section 34 of IPC as well as Section 3 read
with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1964.
The allegation in the complaint filed by the original
4.
th
appellant is that on 6 July 2000, the first respondent –
Smt. Surekha Parmar, the then Asst. SubInspector (ASI)
of the Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur along with other
police personnel shown as accused in the complaint
came to Anuppur to arrest the appellant and his family
members. It is pointed out that the appellant and his
family members were staying within the jurisdiction of
Anuppur Police Station. The first respondent entered the
jurisdiction of another Police Station to arrest the
appellant and his family members.
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page 2 of 9
th
5. The case made out in the complaint is that on 7
July 2000 at about 05:30 a.m., the first respondent and
other police personnel entered the house of the appellant
in Anuppur. The first respondent along with others
started abusing and beating the original appellant with
kicks and fists. He was dragged out of his room by
holding his hair. The first respondent and other police
personnel assaulted the appellant (1.1) with kicks, fists
and dandas. It is alleged that due to the injuries
sustained by him, the appellant (1.1) fell down. At that
time, the first respondent snatched a gold chain weighing
about one and a half tolas worn by the appellant (1.1).
The other police personnel dragged the younger brother
of the appellant (1.1) to the original appellant’s room and
while doing so, hurled filthy abuses at him. He was
assaulted by the other police personnel accompanying
the first respondent. Thereafter, by showing a pistol, the
first respondent and coaccused Laxmi took out cash
amount of Rs.15,000/ from almirah along with four
golden ornaments.
6. A crowd gathered outside the house of the appellant
and some of them questioned the authority of the first
respondent. At that time, the first respondent threatened
the crowd and the persons who were challenging her
authority. Thereafter, the original appellant and other
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page 3 of 9
members of his family were handcuffed and made to walk
up to the Police Station at Anuppur where they were
detained. After some local residents arrived at the Police
Station to enquire about the appellant and his family
members, the first respondent told them to persuade the
appellant to give her Rs.30,000/, failing which, she
would torture the arrested persons. Subsequently, the
appellant and her family members were taken by the first
respondent to Jabalpur and were detained in the lockup
of Mahila Police Station.
7. The first respondent and others approached the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh by filing a petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint. On
th
17 May 2010, the petition was dismissed by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh.
8. The learned Magistrate framed charges against the
first respondent for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506(2) read with Section 34 of
IPC. The said order was subjected to a challenge by the
first respondent before the Sessions Court by filing a
Revision Application, which was dismissed. Being
aggrieved by the orders of the learned Magistrate and the
learned Sessions Court, the first respondent filed a
petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page 4 of 9
Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court
proceeded to quash the charges framed against the first
respondent on the ground that a prior sanction under
Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was not obtained.
SUBMISSIONS
9. The submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant is that at this stage, the
correctness of the accusations in the complaint filed by
the appellant cannot be gone into. The learned counsel
submitted that going by the allegations made in the
complaint, it cannot be said that the impugned actions of
the first respondent were taken while acting or
purporting to act in discharge of her official duty.
10. The learned counsel representing the first
respondent as well as the State submitted that on the
basis of the F.I.R. registered at Mahila Police Station at
Jabalpur, the first respondent and other police personnel
came to Anuppur to arrest the appellant. Therefore, the
first respondent visited the house of the appellant in the
discharge of her official duty. In any case, it can be said
that the first respondent purported to act in the
discharge of her duties. Therefore, the High Court has
rightly come to the conclusion that the complaint was
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page 5 of 9
liable to be dismissed on the ground that a sanction
under Section 197 of Cr.P.C was required.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the first respondent had raised the issue
of sanction by filing earlier application under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. before the High Court, which was dismissed on
th
17 may 2010. He would, therefore, submit that the
issue of absence of sanction cannot be agitated now. The
learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
contended that in the said judgment, the issue of
sanction has been expressly kept open.
OUR VIEW
We have considered the submissions and perused
12.
th
the judgment dated 17 May 2010 of the High Court on
the earlier petition filed by the first respondent under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In paragraph 7, the High Court
held thus:
“ 7. Apparently, the bar contained in Section
197 of the Code would not be attracted to
the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
present case simply because the police
officers had exceeded their authority in
proceeding to arrest the accused persons at
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page 6 of 9
Anuppur which was not within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Mahila Police
Station of Jabalpur. They ought to have
contacted the local police; apprised the local
police officials of the matter and solicited
their assistance in effecting arrest of the
accused persons.”
13. In paragraph 11, the High Court held thus:
“ For these reasons, it is not possible to
11.
conclude that the allegations made in the
complaint even if taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety, would not
constitute any offence against the
petitioners. Moreover, the conclusion
that Section 197 is a bar to the
prosecution of the petitioners police
officers would be a premature
”
conclusion.
(emphasis added)
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page 7 of 9
14. The aforesaid judgment of the High Court has
become final. On the basis of material on record, the
High Court had held that in the facts of the case, it would
be premature to hold that Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is a bar
to the prosecution. This observation holds good even
today, inasmuch as the evidence has not been adduced
in the complaint.
Going by the assertions in the complaint filed by the
15.
appellant, prima facie, it appears that without any
authority, the first respondent, along with other police
personnel, entered the house of the appellant early in the
morning and committed the offences alleged against
them. Looking at the nature of the allegations in the
complaint, at this stage, it is impossible to conclude that
the acts allegedly done by the first respondent were
committed by her while acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of her official duty. Therefore, at this stage, we
cannot conclude that a sanction under Section 197 of
Cr.P.C. was required. In the facts of the case, the final
view on this issue can be taken only after the evidence is
recorded. Therefore, there was no reason for the High
Court to quash the proceedings at this stage on the
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page 8 of 9
ground that a sanction under Section 197 was
mandatory.
16. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside
and the order of the learned Trial Court of framing
charges is restored. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
However, we make it clear that the observations and
findings recorded in this judgment are for limited
purposes of considering a challenge to the order of the
High Court. Nothing observed in this judgment shall be
construed as any final adjudication on the merits of the
pending complaint including the issue of sanction.
….……………J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
.………………J.
(Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi;
April 12, 2023.
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page 9 of 9