Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: The Bench of Dr A. K. Mishra, J., allowed a petition filed to quash the order passed taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 448, 427, 380, 506 and 149 IPC.

The facts of the case were that a complaint was filed against the petitioner stating that the Executive Officer of Phulbani NAC and Tahasildar, accompanied by their staff and police, demolished the toilet and room of the complainant’s house. Getting the said news, when opposite party 2 arrived at the spot and made a protest, the accused persons abused and threatened him. After demolition, they took away the belongings kept in that house for construction purpose. His report in this regard was not accepted by the police. Later on when a case was registered and investigation was conducted police filed the final report. The Court, vide an earlier order observed that the act complained of appeared to have inseparable nexus with the discharge of the official duty and as such the Court should not have taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioner in the absence of sanction order under Section 197 CrPC. The Court quashed the proceeding in the case against two other accused persons. The act complained of was found to have integrally connected to the duty of the officers like that of the petitioner.

The Court held that the present petitioner stood at equal footing with that of the co-accused persons against whom proceeding was already quashed for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. Hence the proceeding against present petitioner was also ordered to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. [Rabindranath Mohanty v. State of Orissa, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 107, Order dated 07-03-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of B. Kemal Pasha, J. drew a nexus between the act and the discharge of the official duty of the inspector.

Petitioner who was Sub Inspector of Police was accused under Sections 342, 323, 324, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC under a private complaint.

The complainant has contended that he was unnecessarily taken into custody by the Police while he along with his friend was in the car which allegedly was being driven in a drunken state. Further, while in custody the complainant attacked another sub-inspector on duty when taken into custody. The petitioner police officer through his counsel Chandrasekharan Nair stated that the complainant pleaded guilty by voluntarily appearing before the Court wherein it clearly states his faulty complaint and thus the version of the petitioner cannot be rebutted.

The Court was of the view that it was evident that it was in discharge of his official duty that the petitioner took the complainant into custody and the offence committed was proved by his acts. Therefore the complaint as such cannot be proceeded with for want of sanction following which the petition stood allowed. [Sajikumar v. V. Sasikumar, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 6014, decided on 05-02-2018]