Dhirendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

P.K. Jain, J.—Heard Sri R.S. Misra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This revision is against the order dated 2.2.84 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Deoria in Criminal Case No. 140 of 1980 rejecting the application dated 13.9.83 moved by the revisionist for dismissing the complaint for want of sanction as required by Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure.

Opposite Party No. 2, Smt. Saraswati Devi, filed a complaint with the allegations that on the date of incident her brother Rajendra Chaubey, was at her house. At the time of incident, he was sleeping inside the house. Accused D.P. Singh, Sub-Inspector posted at Bhaluani out-post, accompanied by constable Gorakh Singh and three other constables came to her house with gun, Danda and pistol and told her that Raj Mangal dacoit was hiding in her house. She told that Raj Mangal was not in her house, she was abused and the accused party entered her house and looted property from her house. Rajendra Chaubey raised his voice against such acts on the part of the police party whereupon Rajendra Chaubey was taken away by the police party and was killed in a field. The accused also told Smt. Saraswati Devi that the deceased was Raj Mangal.

After the accused were summoned by the court below, an application was moved by them in which they alleged that the accused and other police constables had received an information about dacoity being committed in village Israuli and villagers were chasing the dacoits. Police party also reached there. The dacoits had thrown hand-grenades and had also fired from gun. Police also fired some shots killing two dacoits at the spot. On these facts it was contended on behalf of the accused persons that the death of Rajendra Chaubey was caused by the accused persons at a time when they were discharging their official duty as public servant and, therefore, they could not be prosecuted without sanction of the competent authority as required u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate after considering the facts held that the accused were given ample opportunity to show that Rajendra was a dacoit but no evidence was adduced and that the facts disclosed in the complaint do not show that the offence was committed by the public servants in the discharge of their official duty. The court below placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Uma Shankar Misra v. State of U.P. 1993 ADN 603, in which the facts were almost similar. The learned Magistrate consequently rejected the prayer of the revisionist.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the revisionists have preferred this revision. It is contended that the revisionists were undoubtedly public servants and were posted at police outpost Bhaluani. According to their allegations, they heard hue and cry and saw that the dacoits were being chased by the villagers and when they reached the scene of occurrence the dacoits attempted to kill them and it was in defence that the police party had fired. It is contended that Rajendra Chaubey and other persons were killed at the time when the revisionists were discharging their official duties as public servants.

Having considered the argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionists and also the allegations made in the complaint, it is not possible at this stage to hold that the offence in question was committed by the revisionists in the discharge of their official duties as public servants. Specific allegations are that the accused party went to the house of the complainant and asked from her about some dacoit and when she showed her ignorance, they entered her house and looted property from her house. When Rajendra Chaubey, her brother, raised his voice against such acts of the police, he was taken away and killed. In these circumstances, at this stage, it cannot be said that the act of killing Rajendra Chaubey was committed in the discharge of official duties as public servants. The court below rightly held that no sanction was necessary in view of the above facts. I see no illegality in the impugned order.

The revision is hereby dismissed. The stay order dated 22.2.84 is vacated.