ASHOK MAHADEV DESAI Vs. HASEEN AHMED QURESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction contending that the issuance of process against them on 18. 2. 2006 is illegal. Petitioner No. 1, at the relevant time, was a Senior Police Inspector and is now an Assistant Commissioner of Police. Petitioner No. 2 was an Assistant Police Inspector at the relevant time at Pydhoni Police Station. The allegations against the petitioners are that they have assaulted respondent No. 1 who is physically challenged and had thereby committed several offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 323, 324, 325, 506-II (2) read with sections 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, has erred in issuing process in respect of the offences punishable under sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, it was necessary to obtain sanction under section 197 of the Cri. P. C. before prosecuting a public servant. He places reliance on the judgments in the cases of (1) Subhash Manmothe Vs. State of maharashtra, 2007 CrLJ 537; (2) Centre of Public Interest Litigation and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr., 2006 AllMR(Cri) 271; (3) Jayasinghvs. K. K. Velautham and anr., 2006 9 SCC 414; (4) Sankaran Moitra Vs. Sadhana Das and anr.,2006 2 SCC 358; (5) Rakesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State and anr., 2006 1 SCC 557; (6) State of Karnataka Vs. Nagarajaswami, 2006 1 SCC(Cri) 47; (7) K. Kalimutthu Vs. State, 2005 4 SCC 512; (8) Ashok Meheta Vs. Ram ashray Singh, 2006 1 SCC(Cri) 530; (9) State of Orissa and ors. Vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew, 2004 8 SCC 40; (10) Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh Vs. Jammal Patel, 2001 5 SCC 7; (11) Suresh kumar Bhikamchand Jain Vs. Pande Ajay bhushan and ors., 1998 1 SCC 205; (12) State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Budhikota subbarao, 1993 3 SCC 339; (13) Matajog Dobey Vs. H. C. Bhari, 1956 AIR(SC) 44. He also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of A. K. Sahdev and anr. Vs. Ramesh Nanji Shah and anr., 1998 5 BCR 738. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, all the offences alleged against the petitioners form part of the same transaction and it would be necessary for the complainant to obtain sanction even for prosecuting the petitioners under sections 323 and 325. He also submits that even if some excesses have been committed by the petitioners in the line of duty, they cannot be faulted nor can they be prosecuted without a sanction under section 197 of the Cri. P. C. He submits that the facts in the present case do not indicate that the petitioners have committed any excesses or have assaulted the complainant in a manner which does not require sanction under section 197 for prosecuting them.

(3.) In my view, there is no error committed by both the Courts below and hence no interference is called for by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.