Supreme Court Upholds Complaint Against Police Officer: Devendra Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 02, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 316

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a criminal complaint against a police officer be quashed simply because there might be some inconsistencies in the statements of the complainant and witnesses? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving allegations against a Station House Officer (SHO). This case clarifies the extent of protection afforded to public servants under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and the stage at which the veracity of witness statements should be assessed. The bench comprised Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The appellant, Devendra Prasad Singh, filed a complaint against respondent No. 2, a police officer (SHO), alleging offences punishable under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 379 (theft), and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, took cognizance of the complaint. However, the High Court of Judicature at Patna quashed the Magistrate’s order, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, took cognizance of the complaint filed by the appellant against respondent No. 2 for offences under Sections 323, 341, 379, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondent No. 2 then filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the Magistrate’s order, stating that there was no prima facie case against respondent No. 2 and that no sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, had been obtained.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section deals with the requirement of prior sanction for prosecuting public servants. It states that when a public servant is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the government.
• Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section empowers the High Court to make orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
• Sections 323, 341, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections define the offences of voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint, theft and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace respectively.

The core issue is whether the alleged offences committed by the police officer were in the discharge of his official duties, thus requiring prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Arguments

The arguments in this case centered around whether the alleged actions of the police officer were related to his official duties, thereby necessitating prior sanction for prosecution.

• Appellant’s (Complainant’s) Argument:
  • The appellant argued that the alleged offences committed by the police officer were not in the course of his official duties.
  • Therefore, no prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was required to initiate prosecution.
  • The appellant contended that the High Court erred in quashing the complaint based on alleged contradictions in the statements of the complainant and witnesses, as this should be determined during the trial.
• Respondent’s (Police Officer’s) Argument:
  • The respondent contended that the alleged offences were committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties.
  • Thus, prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was necessary for the court to take cognizance of the complaint.
  • The respondent supported the High Court’s decision to quash the complaint based on contradictions in the statements of the complainant and witnesses.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellant’s argument that the alleged offences were not related to the official duties of the police officer, thereby circumventing the need for prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. This argument challenges the broad interpretation of “official duty” often used to protect public servants from prosecution.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant) against respondent No. 2, holding that there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No. 2 for issuance of the process of the summons to him for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 379 and 504 IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal authorities and provisions:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the complaint case. The Court held that the High Court erred on two counts:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The lack of nexus between the alleged offences and the official duties of the police officer.
• The High Court’s overreach in assessing witness statements at the stage of Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.
• The need to ensure that public servants are not unduly protected from prosecution for acts unrelated to their official duties.

The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court stated, “In our view, in order to attract the rigor of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., it is necessary that the offence alleged against a Government Officer must have some nexus or/and relation with the discharge of his official duties as a Government Officer.”

The Court further noted, “So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements.”

The Court concluded, “The Magistrate will proceed with the complaint and decide the same strictly in accordance with law on merits without being influenced by any observations made by the High Court in the impugned order and in this order.”

Key Takeaways

• Prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is not required for prosecuting a public servant if the alleged offence is not directly related to their official duties.
• High Courts should not assess the credibility of witness statements while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. This should be done during the trial.
• This judgment reinforces the principle that public servants are not immune from prosecution for acts unrelated to their official duties.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint and decide the same strictly in accordance with law on merits, without being influenced by any observations made by the High Court or the Supreme Court in this order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for the applicability of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the alleged offence must have a direct nexus with the discharge of official duties. This judgment clarifies that the protection under Section 197 is not absolute and does not extend to acts unrelated to official duties. This is not a change in the previous position of law but a reiteration of the settled legal position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Devendra Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar reinforces the principle that public servants are not immune from prosecution for acts unrelated to their official duties. The Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the complaint, emphasizing that the assessment of witness statements should be done during the trial and not at the stage of quashing a complaint. This decision ensures that public servants are held accountable for their actions while also protecting them from frivolous prosecution related to their official duties.