Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Quash Complaint Against Police Officials, Holds Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Not Required for Illegal Confinement
Case Name: Shankar Lal v. State of Haryana and Another; Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another; Ashish Jain v. ASI Shankar Lal and Others
Date of Judgment: January 5, 2015
Citation: CRM-M-9157 of 2014, CRM-M-9213 of 2014, and CRM-M-15422 of 2014
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed three connected petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC by police officials and a complainant seeking quashing of complaint and summoning orders, holding that no case was made out for interference. Justice Inderjit Singh ruled that sanction under Section 197 CrPC was not required when the alleged acts—illegal confinement of a complainant, his wife, and minor children—were not committed in discharge of official duties. The Court held that such actions, being wholly unauthorized and beyond the scope of official functions, could not attract statutory protection. It further observed that questions of delay, sanction, or sufficiency of evidence must be adjudicated at trial, not at the quashing stage, and reiterated that a second revision is barred under Section 397(3) CrPC.
Summary: The petitions arose from Criminal Complaint No. 30 dated July 17, 2013, filed by Ashish Jain against ASI Shankar Lal, Constable Dinesh Kumar, and others, alleging offences under Sections 167, 182, 323, 342, 363, 364, 499, 501, and 120-B IPC. The complaint alleged that on December 7, 2011, the accused police officials, along with private persons, assaulted the complainant and his family at a dharamshala near Rajgarh (Rajasthan), forcibly took them to Rohtak, detained them at Police Station Civil Lines, and compelled them to consume stale food. It was further alleged that the complainant’s wife and children fell ill due to vomiting and were taken to PGIMS, Rohtak, after which the complainant was falsely implicated in FIR No. 656 of 2011 under Section 406 IPC.
The Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, by order dated August 21, 2013, summoned the accused police officials and private persons for offences under Sections 323, 342, and 120-B IPC. Revisions filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, were dismissed on February 1, 2014. Thereafter, the accused police officials filed petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the complaint, summoning order, and revisional judgment.
Justice Inderjit Singh dismissed the petitions, holding that determination of delay and validity of sanction must await trial. The Court noted that detaining the complainant’s wife and minor children in police lock-up without any legal justification could not be said to be an act in discharge of official duty, hence sanction under Section 197 CrPC was not a precondition to prosecution. The Court also rejected the complainant’s own petition (CRM-M-15422 of 2014) seeking inclusion of additional IPC sections, holding that such matters were within the Magistrate’s discretion during pre-charge or charge-framing stage.
Decision: The High Court upheld the orders of the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing all petitions as devoid of merit. It held that the complaint was maintainable, no sanction was necessary for prosecution of police officials in such circumstances, and the petitions amounted to impermissible second revisions barred under Section 397(3) CrPC.