- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7610 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI BRIJESH MATHEW, S/O SRI. K.J MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, CARLTON HOUSE, BENGALURU 560 001 (SHOWN IN PCR AS POLICE INSPECTOR, CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU). 2. SRI MANJUNATH M, S/O SRI MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY MARKET POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 001. (SHOWN IN PCR AS SUB- INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU). 3. SRI RAMESH, S/O SRI SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GIRINAGARA POLICE STATION, GIRINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 085. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 (SHOWN IN PCR AS HEAD CONSTABLE, CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU). 4. SRI HUSENSAB BADIGAR, S/O SRI IMAMSAB, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS POLICE CONSTABLE, CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 040. (SHOWN IN PCR AS POLICE CONSTABLE, CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU). 5. MR. SHASHIKUMARA C S, S/O SRI SHARANAPPA C M, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS POLICE CONSTABLE, CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 040. (SHOWN IN PCR AS WRITER AND CONSTABLE, CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU). 6. SRI SRINIVASA Y H, S/O HONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS HEAD CONSTABLE, CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 040. 7. MR. NAVEEN KUMAR M, S/O SRI MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS POLICE CONSTABLE, MAGADI ROAD POLICE STATION, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 040. (SHOWN IN PCR AS POLICE CONSTABLE, CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU). 8. SRI SHIVANANDA H MADALLI, S/O SRI HANUMANTHAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS HEAD CONSTABLE, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGARA POLICE STATION, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072. (SHOWN IN PCR AS POLICE HEAD CONSTABLE, CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU). 9. SRI JAGADEESHA, S/O BASAVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, CURRENTLY SERVING AS POLICE CONSTABLE, CITY MARKET POLICE STATION, K.R.MARKET, BENGALURU-560 001. (SHOWN IN PCR AS POLICE CONSTABLE, CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU). …PETITIONERS (BY SRI BHARATH KUMAR V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. SRI HARISHRAJ G B, S/O SRI GOPALA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O NO. 45/34, 16TH CROSS, MALAGALA, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 091. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 BANGALORE-560 001. (AS PER COURT ORDER 18.08.2022 AMENDMENT IS CARRIED OUT) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GIRISH D S, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. K.P YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C TO 1.QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE VIII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN MATTER BEARING PCR.NO.15334/2021 CURRENTLY RE-NUMBERED AS MATTER BEARING C.C.NO.24006/2022 ON IT FILE, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE TRIAL COURT WAS PLEASED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE COMPLAINT BEARING PCR.NO.15334/2021 AND FURTHER PLEASED TO OBSERVE THAT NO PRIOR SANCTION UNDER SEC.197 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE IS REQUIRED, PRIOR TO TAKING OF THE COGNIZANCE (ANNEXURE-A) ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 9 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in PCR.No.15334/2021 which is now pending in C.C.No.24006/2022 on the file of the learned VIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 168, 177, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 204, 323, 324, 330, 504, 506 of I.P.C and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.1 as complainant filed PCR No.15334/2021 against the accused alleging commission of the offences as stated above. The allegations made by the complainant/respondent No.1 is that on 15.03.2021, at 6.30 p.m when he along with his friend Ashok Raj was passing near Adishwar Showroom, within Chandra Layout police station limits, three unknown persons came on a scooter with triple riding violating the traffic rules. Accused Nos.4 and 5 being the police constables tried to stop the scooter, but they tried to escape. At that time, accused No.4 assaulted the above persons and caused injuries. Inspite of that, riders managed to escape, but in their attempt to escape they fell down and sustained injuries. One of the persons suffered fracture of left leg. The complainant questioned the act of accused No.4 as to why he has assaulted the riders. Many public gathered at the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 spot. Immediately accused Nos.4 and 5 managed to get some more police personnel and 6-8 police constables came to the spot. 3. Accused No.5 started assaulting the general public and accused Nos.4 and 5 have dragged the complainant and one Ashok Raj by handcuffing them and taken them to the police station. The complainant recorded the entire episode on his mobile and taken photographs. It is stated that accused No.1 being the police inspector under the guise of enquiry, assaulted the complainant, man handled him by kicking all over his body with bootleg. He was made to sit on the floor only with undergarment. 4. Accused No.1 directed his subordinate - accused No.2 to teach the complainant a lesson. Accordingly, accused No.2 assaulted the complainant and his friend with lathis, bootlegs, fist and caused brutal injuries. Accused Nos.3 to 5 abused the complainant in filthy language and kicked on their back, legs, shoulders, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 stomach. When the complainant was unable to bear the pain, he started screaming for help. Accused No.2 pointed the complainant's head with a revolver as per the instructions of accused No.1 and threatened to kill him, thereby, intimidated to cause his death. Later, the complainant came to know that the revolver was empty and had no bullets in it. Accused No.2 fisted the complainant on his head, back and stomach, etc. 5. The accused have registered a false complaint on 15.03.2021 against the complainant and his friend and later produced them before the learned Magistrate. Within few days, a rowdy sheet was opened against the complainant without any reasons. When the complainant was remanded to custody as per the order of learned Magistrate and taken him to the Central Prison, Bengaluru, the complainant was subjected to medical examination by the Medical Officer and as per the medical report, he had sustained several injuries all over his body. Therefore, it is the contention of the complainant that the accused being - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 the police officers crossed their limits and committed atrocities by assaulting the complainant and thereby committed the offences. Accordingly, he requested the learned Magistrate to take cognizance. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 168, 177, 204, 323, 324, 330, 504, 506 of I.P.C and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 and registered C.C.No.24006/2022. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. Heard Sri. Bharath Kumar. V, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Girish D.S, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they being the police officers are the public servants. Since the complainant has committed the offence punishable under Sections 152, 153, 353 r/w Section 35 of I.P.C., they apprehended him and registered FIR in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 Cr.No.62/2021 of Chandra Layout Police station. Immediately thereafter, they were produced before the Medical Officer and subjected them for examination. Thereafter, they were produced before the learned Magistrate. Respondent No.1/complainant was represented by his advocate when he was produced before the learned Magistrate, but he never alleged commission of any offence against the petitioners, when questioned about the ill treatment by the learned Magistrate. The medical report is also produced before learned Magistrate, where there is no history of any assault nor any injuries were noted. The order sheet maintained by the learned Magistrate discloses all these facts. 8. Learned counsel contended that the learned Magistrate remanded respondent No.1/complainant to judicial custody and accordingly, he was taken to Central Prison, Bengaluru. It is only on 17.03.2021 the complainant said to have been examined by the 'Medical Officer', Central Prison, and it is stated that he had - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 sustained few contusions on his body, which are simple injuries. There are no injuries corresponding to the assault or atrocities mentioned by the complainant/respondent No.1 in the private complaint. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners' submits that the offence in question is said to have been committed by the petitioners who are the public servants while discharging their duties. Sanction as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C and Section 170 of Karnataka Police Act, is not obtained. This fact is ignored before taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate. 10. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision in D.Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain1 to contend that when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty, sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C is a must. Prima facie, no malicious intention could be gathered against the petitioners in discharging their duties. The 1 AIR 2020 SC 3292 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 sequences of dates and events shows that respondent No.1/complainant along with other persons were taken by the police officials and without loss of time FIR in Cr.No.62/2021 came to be registered and within 24 hours respondent No.1/complainant was produced before the learned Magistrate, where respondent No.1/complainant has not made any allegations even though his advocate was representing him and was also present in the open Court. 11. Learned counsel contended that it is only on 17.03.2021, he was subjected to medical examination at Central Prison, Bengaluru. But the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate produced by respondent No.1/complainant do not correspond with the allegations made in the private complaint. Under these circumstances, sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. which is provided for protection of the public servant while discharging their duties is a must. Hence, criminal proceedings initiated - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 against the petitioners without such sanction is liable to be quashed. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant submits that it is a clear case of harassment committed by accused No.1, when he raised objections for assaulting the riders of the scooter in the public place and for not shifting them to the hospital even though they sustained injuries. Respondent No.1/complainant was apprehended, handcuffed and was dragged in public and taken to police station. He was threatened not to reveal these facts to anyone, when he was remanded to custody. He was subjected to medical examination. The report of the medical officer discloses multiple contusions on his body. It prima facie, discloses the offence committed by the accused. 13. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.1/Complainant has video recording of the whole incident. He has produced photographs and CDs before the learned Magistrate, which prima facie discloses the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 offences committed by the petitioners and such acts cannot be committed under the colour of their duties and it cannot be done in discharge of their duties. Since the petitioners even though are the public servants, have exceeded their jurisdiction and assaulted respondent No.1/complainant, no sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. or under Section 170 of Karnataka Police Act is required. Under these circumstances, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 14. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.1 being the complainant filed the private complaint and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences. However, she placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Shadakshari Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr.2, Om Prakash Yadav Vs. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay and Ors3 and State of Orissa Vs. Ganesh 2 AIR 2024 SC 590 3 2024 SCC Online SC 3726 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 Chandra Jew 4 to highlight the ambit and scope of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. as held by Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned HCGP contended that if the Court forms an opinion on facts of the case that the acts committed against the petitioners is outside the scope of their official duty, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required and if not, the same is not required. Accordingly, she prays for passing appropriate order. 15. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: 4 2004 (8) SCC 40 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 R E A S O N S 16. It is the specific contention of respondent No.1 that the accused being the Police Officials have committed the offence punishable under Sections 166, 167, 168, 177, 204, 323, 324, 330, 504, 506 of I.P.C and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has produced a pen drive containing videos stated to be the evidence of the police atrocities against the complainant. The said videos were played by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 in the open Court. On seeing the videos, it is found that it was recorded in the public place where the traffic police are trying to control the traffic and are requesting the public to move on to avoid traffic congestion. However, a raised voice said to be of respondent No.1 repeatedly asking the policeman why he has beaten up a person was heard. 17. It is the specific contention of respondent No.1 that accused Nos.4 and 5 have beaten up one of the rider of the two-wheeler, who were triple riding. When accused - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 Nos.4 and 5 tried to stop them, the riders have tried to flee and at that time, accused Nos.4 and 5 hit them with the police lati in public place. In the meantime, the riders who escaped hitting have fell on the road and sustained injuries. It is pertinent to note that the said injured have no grievance against the police. They have not filed any complaint. Even respondent No.1 do not know what had happened to them but strangely, respondent No.1 started abusing the Police Officials and questioned them stating that they have committed atrocity. In this regard, the entire sequence of event is to be visualized. 18. The Policemen were on duty in the uniform to control the traffic, they have seen a person with triple riding and tried to stop them. When the riders tried to avoid the police, they tried to hit them with police lati. However the riders escaped but in their attempt to escape, they fell down and sustained injuries. It is not as if they have held the innocent person and assaulted in the public place. Moreover, as I have already stated the person who - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 said to have sustained injury i.e., who was riding the motorcycle had no grievance against the Police and they have not filed any complaint, but respondent No.1 took up the issue by questioning them in the public place in the midst of heavy traffic. 19. It is the contention of respondent No.1 that he was dragged to the Police Station by handcuffing and he was beaten up by all the police who are arrayed as accused. It is also his contention that he was kicked by accused No.1 with bootleg and he was made to sit on the floor only with the undergarment. Thereafter, the police have beaten him with a lati, bootleg and fisted all over the body. 20. It is not in dispute that Cr.No.62/2022 of Chandra Layout Police Station came to be registered against respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 152, 153 and 35 of IPC. Admittedly, respondent No.1 and another were subjected to medical examination and later produced before the learned Magistrate on - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 16.03.2021. The learned Magistrate, in the order sheet specifically observed as under: "Accused no.19 and 20 are produced before me at 4-16 p.m. on 16-3-2021 through ASI Sri.Krishnaiah of Chandra Layout Police Station. Being questioned accused are did not (subjected to) ill treatment by the police. Further submitted that, they were arrested at 7-10 P.M. on 15-3-2021. Same is intimated to their relatives. Sri. T.R.adv., is present and sought for permission to obtain signature of the accused on vakalath. Accordingly, permission is granted." 21. The order sheet further discloses that medical certificate and Covid-19 test report is also produced before the learned Magistrate. Taking into consideration all the materials on record, respondent No.1 and another, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said case, were remanded to judicial custody. 22. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.1 even though produced before the learned Magistrate within 24 hours from the date and time of his arrest had - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 not complained any ill-treatment by the petitioners. On the other hand, learned Magistrate specifically records that no such ill-treatment was alleged by respondent No.1 herein. It is also pertinent to note that respondent No.1 was represented by an advocate when he was produced before the learned Magistrate. Under such circumstances, the contention of respondent No.1 that he was threatened by the Police not to reveal anything before the learned Magistrate, cannot be accepted. 23. It is also pertinent to note that the medical certificate is produced before the learned Magistrate when respondent No.1 herein was produced at the first instance. Admittedly, in the said medical report, there is no history regarding police atrocities or any injuries sustained by respondent No.1. It is only on 17.03.2021, respondent No.1 appears before the Medical Officer, Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, and complains of police atrocities and thereafter, wound certificate as per Document No.6 produced along with a memo, is issued, according to - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 which, respondent No.1 was examined by the Medical Officer in Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru on 17.03.2021 at 3.10 pm and found the following injury: "Bluish pink multiple small contusion marks seen over central back, left shoulder, left hip, right knee (posterior aspect). No other external injuries were seen." After noting these injuries, the Medical Officer has given his opinion that the injuries are simple in nature, most probably caused by blunt objects. 24. If the nature of injuries mentioned in the wound certificate is to be taken into consideration, in the light of allegations made by respondent No.1, the allegations made against the accused/petitioners do not get any support. Moreover, there is no reason for respondent No.1 for not complaining about the assault made by accused Nos.1 to 7 before the Medical Officer when respondent No.1 was first produced before him nor there are any reasons for not making such allegations before the learned Magistrate, that too, in the presence of the Advocate, who - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 represented him when respondent No.1 was produced before the learned Magistrate just before seeking remand. Even though the video was produced by respondent No.1, it does not pertain to any of the police atrocity committed against respondent No.1 or against any 3rd party as alleged. 25. The materials on record prima facie discloses that the petitioners being the Police Officers and the public servants and they acted in discharge of their official duties. Hence, they get protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C as well as Section 170 of Karnataka Police Act. Admittedly, no sanction is obtained to initiate criminal action. 26. In view of the above, I do not find any prima facie materials to pursue the criminal case against the petitioners as it would amount to infringement of the right of the petitioners and also abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:2187 CRL.P No. 7610 of 2022 27. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The FIR registered in PCR.No.15334/2021 which is re-numbered as C.C.No.24006/2022 on the file of VIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 168, 177, 204, 323, 324, 330, 504, 506 of I.P.C and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE RR/NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18