- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7735 CRL.P No. 5435 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5435 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI SIDDARAJU SON OF GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (AT THE TIME OF FILING PRIVATE COMPLAINT) TUMAKURU RURAL POLICE TUMAKURU - 572 101 AT PRESENTLY WORKING AS CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVANANDA .S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TUMAKURU RURAL POLICE STATION REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. SRI B.V. RUDRAPPA SON OF VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT HONNUDIKE GULUR HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 118 3. SRI SUNDARESH SON OF RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT HEGGERE KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 215 Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7735 CRL.P No. 5435 of 2018 4. SRI SHYLENDRA SON OF SUNDARESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT HEGGERE KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 215 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. V. SEENAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 4 (ABSENT)) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR.NO.456/2010 NOW C.C.NO.3461/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, TUMKURU IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ISSUE OF SUMMONS DATED 04.07.2016 TO THE PETITIONER; SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.182/2012 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKURU DATED 24.04.2016. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.2 in CC No.3461 of 2012 (PCR No.456 of 2010) on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 177, 182, 203, 220, 424, 483, 486 and 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7735 CRL.P No. 5435 of 2018 initiated against him and to set aside the order dated 25.11.2015 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.182 of 2012 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for short), whereunder the revision petition was allowed by setting aside the order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the Trial Court in not taking cognizance against the petitioner - accused No.2. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent Nos.2 to 4 as complainant Nos.1 to 3 have filed PCR No.456 of 2010 before the Trial Court against the accused alleging commission of offences as stated above. It is the contention of the complainants that complainant No.1 is running business under the name and style as Shiva Enterprises and obtained trade license from Dodda Naravangala Village and indulged in production of soaps and allied products. He applied to accused No.1 for grant of trademark of 'Anu'. Since the trademark under the name 'Anu' was already registered, complainant No.1 requested to grant the trademark as 'Sri Anu'. Complainant Nos.2 and 3 are the relatives of complainant No.1. On 05.08.2010, when complainant No.1 had been to Arasikere with - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7735 CRL.P No. 5435 of 2018 some work, accused Nos.2 and 3 came near Shiva Enterprises and started alleging that the complainants are manufacturing soaps under the trademark as 'Anu' and the complaint came to be lodged. Accused Nos.2 and 3 abused complainant Nos.2 and 3 in filthy language and registered PCR No.456 of 2010 for the offences as stated above. 3. It is alleged that even though complainant Nos.2 and 3 were apprehended and detained in custody, they were not produced before the learned Magistrate for two days. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have seized 464 soap boxes from Shiva Enterprises, but shown the seizure as only 70 soap boxes in PF. When the highhanded acts of accused Nos.2 and 3 were questioned by the complainants, they abused the complainants in filthy language and gave life threat and thereby, a false complaint came to be registered. 4. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainants and taken cognizance against accused Nos.1 and 4 and discharged accused Nos.2 and 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainants have preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.182 of 2012 before the learned VI - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7735 CRL.P No. 5435 of 2018 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, which came to be allowed vide order dated 25.11.2015. Accordingly, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate against accused Nso.1 to 4 for the above said offences. Being aggrieved by the order taking cognizance and allowing the criminal revision petition, accused No.2 is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 5. Heard Sri S Shivananda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 is absent. There is no representation. Hence, his arguments his taken as NIL. Perused the materials on record. 6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7735 CRL.P No. 5435 of 2018 My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following" REASONS 7. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for petitioner - accused No.2 is to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him, as the petitioner was a public servant working as Sub Inspector of Police and no sanction as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., was obtained to prosecute him. Therefore, the proceedings is to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Yadav Vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay and Ors.1, Amod Kumar Kanth Vs Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy and Another2, D Devraja Vs Owais Sabeer Hussian3 and the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M K Thammaiah and Others Vs Sri A Mohan Kumar4 in support of his contention to contend that when the accused is a public servant discharging his duties as such and when the act 1 2024 SCC Online SC 3726 2 (2023) SCC Online SC 578 3 (2020) 7 SCC 695 4 Crl.P.5232/2024 DD 05.07.2024 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7735 CRL.P No. 5435 of 2018 complained of was reasonably relatable to discharge of his official duty, sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and Section 170 of Police Act, is a must. When admittedly, no sanction was obtained in the present case, criminal proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 9. It is the contention of learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 that the allegations made against the petitioner is that, he apprehended the complainants and detained for about two days without producing them before the learned Magistrate. Further, even though 464 soap boxes were seized, only 70 boxes were shown in the PF and such acts cannot be considered as discharge of official duty. She placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash (supra) and contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court specifically held in paragraph 66 that case of illegal detention of the accused and engaging in criminal conspiracy to create false and fabricated documents and threatening the individuals cannot fall under the protective umbrella of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7735 CRL.P No. 5435 of 2018 10. The legal position on the subject is very well settled. Both the learned counsels placed reliance on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash (supra) and also three Bench decision in Amod Kumar Kanth (supra). 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash (supra) has held in paragraph 66 and 74(3) as under: "66. At the cost of repetition, we say that the position of law on the application of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is clear – that it must be decided based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. This Court has held in a legion of decisions that any misuse or abuse of powers by a public servant to do something that is impermissible in law like threatening to provide a tutored statement or trying to obtain signatures on a blank sheet of paper; causing the illegal detention of an accused; engaging in a criminal conspiracy to create false or fabricated documents; conducting a search with the sole object of harassing and threatening individuals, amongst others, cannot fall under the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7735 CRL.P No. 5435 of 2018 74(iii) While deciding the issue of sanction, it is not necessary for the Court to confine itself to the allegations made in the complaint. It can take into account all the material on record available at the time when such a question is raised and falls for the consideration of the Court." 12. In Amod Kumar Kanth (supra), the Hon'ble apex Court held in paragraphs 29, 30 as under: "29. The most important question which must be posed and answered by the Court when dealing with the argument that sanction is not forthcoming is whether the officer was acting in the exercise of his official duties. It goes further. Even an officer who acts in the purported exercise of his official power is given the protection under Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. This is for good reason that the officer when he exercises the power can go about exercising the same fearlessly no doubt with bona fides as public functionaries can act only bona fide. In fact, the requirement of the action being bona fide is not expressly stated in Section 197 of the Cr. P.C., though it is found in many other statutes protecting public servants from action, civil and criminal against them. 30. Once we bear this cardinal principle in mind and judge the action or omission on the part of the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7735 CRL.P No. 5435 of 2018 appellant, we would think that it cannot be found that, having regard to the admitted facts, the appellant was not acting in the discharge of his official functions." 13. Even in D Devraja (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraphs 70, 71, 72, 73 and 74 as under: "70. An offence committed entirely outside the scope of the duty of the police officer, would certainly not require sanction. To cite an example, a police man assaulting a domestic help or indulging in domestic violence would certainly not be entitled to protection. However if an act is connected to the discharge of official duty of investigation of a recorded criminal case, the act is certainly under colour of duty, no matter how illegal the act may be. 71. If in doing an official duty a policeman has acted in excess of duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the fact that the act alleged is in excess of duty will not be ground enough to deprive the policeman of the protection of government sanction for initiation of criminal action against him. 72. The language and tenor of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act makes it absolutely clear that sanction is required not only for acts done in discharge of official duty, it is also required for an act purported to be done in discharge of official duty and/or act done under colour of or in excess of such duty or authority. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7735 CRL.P No. 5435 of 2018 73. To decide whether sanction is necessary, the test is whether the act is totally unconnected with official duty or whether there is a reasonable connection with the official duty. In the case of an act of a policeman or any other public servant unconnected with the official duty there can be no question of sanction. However, if the act alleged against a policeman is reasonably connected with discharge of his official duty, it does not matter if the policeman has exceeded the scope of his powers and/or acted beyond the four corners of law. 74. If the act alleged in a complaint purported to be filed against the policeman is reasonably connected to discharge of some official duty, cognizance thereof cannot be taken unless requisite sanction of the appropriate government is obtained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. " 14. Thus the position of law is very well settled. The co- ordinate Bench of this Court in M K Thammaiah (supra), placed reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings on the facts of the case. 15. Now the question arises as to whether the act complained of against the petitioner - accused No.2 can be - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7735 CRL.P No. 5435 of 2018 considered as discharge of official duty or whether it can be termed as such act under the colour of his official duty. 16. The answer lies in Om Prakash (supra) in paragraph 66 extracted above where there is reference to the instances such as illegal detention of the accused, creation of false and fabricated documents, harassing and threatening the individuals, which do not fall under the protective umbrella under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. 17. The allegations made in the complaint by the complainants are that, the complainants were apprehended and detained illegally for about two days without producing them before the learned Magistrate and created false and fabricated seizure mahazar and PF showing the seizure of 70 soap boxes when there was seizure of 464 soap boxes and abused the complainants in filthy language, it cannot be termed as acts in discharge of official duty. 18. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court repeatedly in catena of decisions, the question as to whether the offence complained of requires sanction for prosecuting the public servant or not must be considered on facts and circumstances - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:7735 CRL.P No. 5435 of 2018 of each case. When the acts complained of against the Police Officer could be reasonably connected to discharge of his official duty, then the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. may be necessary, but detaining the complainants illegally for two days, fabricating the seizure mahazar in PF to show seizure of less number of soap boxes and abusing the complainants in filthy language cannot be reasonably connected to discharge of official duty by a Police Officer like accused No.2. 19. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the act complained of against the petitioner cannot be reasonably related to discharge of his official duty and therefore, sanction is not necessary to prosecute him. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23