Bal Govind Sonkar & Vikram Singh v. State Of U.P. (2008) ACC 1 864
| Citation | (2008) ACC 1 864 |
| Date of Judgement | 17th December 2007 |
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Appellant | Bal Govind Sonkar & Vikram Singh |
| Respondent | State Of Uttar Pradesh |
| Justice | S. Kulshrestha |
| Reference | Section:147, 342, 365, 367 of Indian Penal Code (IPC)197 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Crpc) |
Facts:
In the given case, applicant No. 1, Sri Bal Govind Sonkar, served as a Sub-Inspector in Firozabad (Dakshin), Agra in the year 1981 while applicant No. 2, Sri Vikram Singh, held the position of Superintendent of Police (Rural Area) in Agra during the same period. The complaint was filed by Sri Ram Narayan Dixit against seven police personnel, including the applicants, alleging offenses under Sections 147, 342, 365, 367 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The complaint claimed that on August 24, 1980, the accused police officers, including the applicants, abducted Sri Ashok Dixit, son of Sri Ram Narayan Dixit, with the intention of killing him in a staged encounter.
It is stated that Sri Ashok Dixit, who Is the son of the complainant, had a criminal record involving around 60 cases and was a member of a gang. He was arrested by the Hariparvat Police in Agra under the U.P. Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. The applicants, however, assert that they were not involved in his arrest and had no connection to it.
The applicants assert that the alleged acts attributed to them, specifically the arrest and detention of Sri Ashok Dixit for his involvement in anti-social activities, fall within the scope and range of their official duties as law enforcement officers. Furthermore, they assert that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Crpc) is applicable, which provides protection to public servants for acts done in their official capacity. Conversely, the counsel for the complainant disputes the applicants’ claim of abatement due to the death of the complainant and argues that Sri Ashok Dixit’s criminal history, including involvement in multiple cases, stems from political motivations rather than genuine offenses.
Issues:
- Whether the complaint case should be terminated due to the complainant’s death, leading to abatement?
- Whether the acts of the applicants were within the scope of their official duties, thereby invoking the protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Arguments:
The counsel representing the applicants submits that the complaint case proceedings should be terminated on the grounds of abatement due to the death of the complainant, Sri Ram Narayan Dixit. It is argued that since the complainant passed away in 2003, the proceedings should have been dismissed as abated in accordance with the relevant legal principles.
Conversely, the counsel for the opposing party, the complainant, counters this argument by asserting that Sri Ashok Dixit, the son of the deceased complainant, has been implicated in numerous cases for political reasons. They contend that Sri Ashok Dixit has been involved in as many as 60 cases, including serious crimes, suggesting a pattern of criminal activity.
The applicants’ counsel further contends that even if it is assumed that the acts in question were committed within the scope of the applicants’ official duties, it would invoke the protection afforded by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). They assert that the arrest and detention of Sri Ashok Dixit for his alleged involvement in anti-social activities were actions carried out as part of the applicants’ official responsibilities.
Judgement:
The learned Magistrate, upon careful consideration of the allegations presented in the complaint, arrived at the conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable due to the absence of necessary sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of HP v. M.P. Gupta (2004) 2 SCC 394: AIR 2004 SC 730, has held that the protection provided by Section 197 extends to acts or omissions carried out in the purported exercise of official duty.
Given the circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the proceedings of the complaint case cannot proceed and would lack jurisdiction due to the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Code. Consequently, the application is granted, and the complaint case is hereby quashed.
The court’s ruling in this case can be deemed as just and appropriate as it upholds the tenets of law, safeguards the integrity of the judicial process, takes into account the interests of the public, upholds the principle of separation of powers, and ensures a fair and unbiased investigation. Based on the aforementioned factors, we are in agreement with the court’s verdict in the present case. This appeal lacks valid grounds and is hereby dismissed in accordance with the court’s decision.
References:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1150669/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608ebb7e4b01497111195f6
Article by:
Bhagwat Mahajan
Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla, an intern under legal vidhiya.
