01Facts
The complainant alleged that a doctor issued two differing injury reports concerning Naresh Singh and that, when he questioned the police officer about two O.D. slips, the officer assaulted him.
p. 2 · ¶ 2He further alleged that the police station did not register an FIR.
p. 2 · ¶ 2The complainant filed Complaint Case No. 1520 of 2023, alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the IPC.
p. 2 · ¶ 3The Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC on 29 January 2024; the Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the complainant’s revision on 23 October 2024.
p. 2 · ¶ 2Pappu Kumar then sought quashing of both orders before the High Court.
p. 2 · ¶ 202Issues
i.1. Whether the Magistrate’s dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 CrPC, as affirmed in revision, warranted interference by the High Court
p. 2 · ¶ 2 · p. 3 · ¶ 4ii.2. Whether the allegations against the doctor and police officer could proceed in the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, given the court’s view that they were acting in the discharge of official duties
p. 3 · ¶ 703Law Applied
The court referred to Section 203 CrPC, under which a Magistrate may dismiss a complaint after considering the complaint, the complainant’s examination and any inquiry or investigation, if there is insufficient ground to proceed.
It also relied on Section 197 CrPC, which requires prior sanction for prosecution of specified public servants for acts alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty.
p. 3 · ¶ 7The complaint alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) IPC.
p. 2 · ¶ 2The judgment cited no precedent.
Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420Section 467Section 468
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 203Section 197
04Reasoning
The High Court considered the allegations of differing injury reports and the alleged assault, but concluded that the opposite parties had acted in the discharge of their official duties and that sanction under Section 197 CrPC had not been provided.
p. 3 · ¶ 7It also observed that any variation concerning the nature of the weapon could be tested when the doctor and investigating officer gave evidence at trial.
p. 3 · ¶ 7On that basis, it found no reason to interfere with the orders dismissing the complaint and the revision.
p. 3 · ¶ 705Holding
The High Court declined to interfere with the Magistrate’s order dismissing the complaint under Section 203 CrPC or the revisional order affirming it.
p. 3 · ¶ 7The criminal miscellaneous application was dismissed.
p. 4 · ¶ 8Original Court PDF
Pappu KumarvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
