DILBAG SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.T., CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called the 'Code') for quashing criminal complaint dated February 19, 1985, filed by Smt. Surinder Kaur alias Gurdeep Kaur, respondent No. 2, under Sections 302, 342 and 364 read with Sections 120-B and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the 'Penal Code') summoning order dated January 25, 1986 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur, order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dated February 2, 1994, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for dropping the proceedings in the complaint case against them and order dated February 3, 1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, by which charges under Sections 364 read with Sections 149 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code have been framed against them.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are as under : Smt. Surinder Kaur alias Gurdeep Kaur filed a complaint under Sections 302, 342 and 364 read with Sections 120-B of 149 of the Penal Code against the petitioners and five others on February 19, 1985. The petitioners were ordered to be summoned to stand trial under Section 302 read with Sections 149/364 of the Penal Code. Petitioner filed an application for dropping the proceedings against them stating that since the act complained of by respondent No. 2 was done by them in the discharge of their official duties being members of the Police or the Para-Military Force, they could not be prosecuted without obtaining the prior sanction of the Government as envisaged by Section 197 of the Code. The application filed by the petitioners was opposed by respondent No. 2 and in her reply she had stated that since the act of criminality i.e. killing of her husband, attributed to the petitioners had absolutely no connection with the performance of their official duties, the protection of Section 197 of the Code was not available to them and that the request made by them could not, therefore, be acceded to.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have come to the conclusion that the request of the petitioners for dropping the proceedings in the complaint case has been rightly declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.