Facts
On 16.02.2022, police intercepted truck No. AS-01/NC-4189 at Lailapur Check Point carrying 125 bags, totalling approximately 10,000 kg, of suspected Burmese supari. The petitioner was then posted at Lailapur Police Post under Dholai Police Station
Source reference: p.2, para. 3An FIR was registered as Dholai P.S. Case No. 58/2022 under Sections 120(B), 420, 379 and 411 IPC against Respondent No. 2 and two others, followed by investigation and submission of a charge-sheet
Source reference: pp.3–4, paras. 4–6Respondent No. 2, who was an accused in the said case, subsequently filed Complaint Case No. 126/2022 against the petitioner and other police officials, alleging, inter alia, false implication, wrongful confinement, fabrication of records, and illegal seizure of the supari despite production of valid documents
Source reference: pp.4–7, paras. 7–9The Magistrate recorded the complainant’s and witnesses’ statements, took cognizance of offences including Sections 166, 211, 241, 342, 465 and 469 IPC, and issued summons to the petitioner and two others
Source reference: pp.7–9, paras. 9–10The petitioner invoked Sections 482 and 401 CrPC seeking quashing of the complaint and the order taking cognizance, principally on the ground that the alleged acts were performed in discharge of his official duties and that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory
Source reference: pp.2, 8–9, paras. 2, 11–15Issues
1. Whether prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory before the Magistrate could take cognizance of the complaint against the petitioner, a police officer, for acts allegedly committed while registering and dealing with the FIR concerning the seized supari
Source reference: pp.10–12, paras. 17–202. Whether the order taking cognizance and the criminal complaint were liable to be quashed insofar as they concerned the petitioner, in the absence of such sanction
Source reference: pp.20–22, paras. 24–283. Whether the alleged offences under Sections 166, 211, 241, 342, 465 and 469 IPC were otherwise made out was left open for determination at the appropriate stage
Source reference: p.22, para. 27Law Applied
The Court applied Section 197 CrPC, which bars a court from taking cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by a protected public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty without prior governmental sanction
Source reference: pp.10–12, paras. 17–20Relying on Rajen Singh, APS v. State of Assam, Diganta Barah v. State of Assam, Matajog Dubey v. H.C. Bhari, Indra Devi v. State of Rajasthan, S. Moitra v. State of West Bengal and Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, the Court held that there must be a reasonable connection between the alleged act and the official duty; the protection extends even to acts done in excess of duty, provided they are not merely a cloak for an unrelated criminal act
Source reference: pp.12–20, paras. 21–22The question is whether the quality and nature of the act fall within the scope and range of official duty, not whether the act ultimately constitutes an offence
Source reference: pp.12–20, paras. 21–22Reasoning
The petitioner, being a police officer, fell within the category of public servants protected by Section 197 CrPC
Source reference: p.11, para. 20The allegations arose directly from his official handling of information regarding the transportation of suspected contraband, registration of the FIR, arrest and initiation of criminal proceedings
Source reference: pp.20–21, paras. 23–24Even accepting the complainant’s allegations that the supari was legally imported, that valid documents were shown, and that the case was falsely instituted, the complained-of acts remained reasonably connected with the petitioner’s police duties.
Source reference: p.21, para. 24The Court therefore held that any alleged excess, illegality or dishonest exercise of official functions did not eliminate the statutory protection at the cognizance stage
Source reference: p.21, para. 24Since no prior sanction had been obtained, the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance against the petitioner. The issue of sanction was required to be decided before commencement of trial and could not be postponed in the circumstances
Source reference: p.21, para. 24Holding
The Court held that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory because the allegations concerned acts performed by the petitioner in the discharge or purported discharge of his official duties.
Accordingly, the order taking cognizance in Complaint Case No. 126/2022 was set aside insofar as it related to the petitioner, and the petition was allowed
Source reference: p.22, paras. 25–28The Court did not finally determine whether the alleged penal provisions were substantively attracted and left that question open for consideration at the appropriate stage and forum
Source reference: p.22, para. 27Acts & Sections Cited
13 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733
Original Court PDF
Abhijit Kr. BaruahvsThe State Of Assam And Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
