Section 197(2) CrPC protects all Jharkhand police personnel, requiring prior sanction for prosecution of official-duty acts.

01Facts

Opposite Party No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 729 of 2022 against the petitioners, who were police personnel, alleging offences under Sections 323, 341, 365 and 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶ 2–3 · pp. 2–3

The Judicial Magistrate initially held that the alleged acts occurred during the discharge of official duties and that prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary before cognizance could be taken.

¶ 2–3 · pp. 2–3

In Criminal Revision No. 174 of 2022, the Additional Sessions Judge, III, Dhanbad set aside the Magistrate’s order, holding that no sanction was required because the petitioners—being an Officer-in-Charge, Sub-Inspector, Constable and Havildar—could be removed by the Inspector General of Police and not by the State Government.

¶ 4–5 · pp. 3–4

Pursuant thereto, the Magistrate passed an order dated 18.05.2023 finding a prima facie case and summoning the petitioners.

¶ 4–5 · pp. 3–4

The petitioners invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C., relying on the Bihar Government Notification dated 16.05.1980 extending the protection of Section 197(2) Cr.P.C. to all members of the police force.

¶ 6 · p. 4

02Issues

i.Whether the Bihar Government Notification dated 16.05.1980, extending the protection of Section 197(2) Cr.P.C. to all members of the police force, applied to the petitioners and required prior sanction for prosecution?

¶ 6, 8 · pp. 4–5

ii.Whether the revisional court erred in holding that sanction was unnecessary merely because the petitioners could be removed from service by the Inspector General of Police rather than the State Government?

¶ 4, 8 · p. 3, 5

iii.Whether the summoning order dated 18.05.2023 and subsequent orders, passed pursuant to the revisional order, were liable to be quashed?

¶ 5, 9–10 · pp. 3–6

03Law Applied

Section 197(2) Cr.P.C. requires prior sanction for prosecution of members of the Armed Forces and, where applicable by governmental notification, members of police forces for acts done or purportedly done in discharge of official duties.

¶ 6, 8 · pp. 4–5

The Bihar Government Notification dated 16.05.1980 extended this statutory protection to all members of the police force, including officers and subordinate personnel.

¶ 6, 8 · pp. 4–5

The Court relied on Om Prakash & Others v. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi & Another, (2012) 12 SCC 72, wherein the Supreme Court recognised the validity and effect of the said notification.

¶ 6 · p. 4

The protection was held applicable in Jharkhand by virtue of the Bihar Reorganisation Act.

¶ 8 · p. 5

The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to correct proceedings founded upon an erroneous interpretation of the sanction requirement.

¶ 2 · p. 2

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 197 Section 482

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 323 Section 341 Section 365 Section 354 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court found that the revisional court had failed to consider the binding effect of the 16.05.1980 notification, which extended Section 197(2) protection to all police personnel, irrespective of their rank or the authority competent to remove them from service.

¶ 6–8 · pp. 4–5

The revisional court’s reasoning—that sanction was unnecessary because the petitioners could be removed by the Inspector General of Police—was therefore legally unsustainable.

¶ 6–8 · pp. 4–5

Since the Magistrate’s order dated 05.09.2022 had correctly proceeded on the basis that sanction was required and had found no sufficient material to invoke the Section 354 IPC exception, the subsequent revisional order setting it aside was erroneous.

¶ 3–4, 8 · pp. 2–5

Consequently, the summoning order dated 18.05.2023 and all later orders, having been passed pursuant to the invalid revisional order, could not stand.

¶ 9 · p. 6