CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 245 of 2008 PETITIONER: Subrayappa RESPONDENT: D. Palakshaiah DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/02/2008 BENCH: CJI K. G. Balakrishnan & R. V. Raveendran JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.245 OF 2008
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1447 OF 2005)
Delay condoned. Leave granted. Though notice has been served on
respondents 2 to 4, they have not chosen to enter appearance and contest
these proceedings. Heard the counsel for appellant and first respondent.
2. The Appellant herein, who was the complainant, filed a private
complaint against Respondents 1 to 4 herein (Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5) and
Accused No. 3 who is stated to have died during the pendency of the
proceedings. The complainant alleged that the accused 2 to 5 who were
police constables came to his house, assaulted his wife and neighbours and
damaged the household articles; and that when he went to the police station
to lodge a complaint, the Sub-Inspector (Accused No.1) assaulted him and
subjected him to illegal detention. The learned Magistrate took cognizance
and directed registration of a case against accused for offences punishable
under section 448, 427, 341, 342, 354, 506(B) read with 34 IPC and ordered
issue of summons.
3. The first accused (D. Palakshiah) filed an application under section
482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court to quash the
proceedings on the ground that he was a public servant and the Magistrate
was not justified in taking cognizance of the offences alleged against him as
there was no sanction to prosecute him. His plea was accepted by the High
Court. The High Court, instead of quashing the proceedings as against the
first respondent herein, quashed the entire proceedings pending before the
JMFC, Neelamangala, by the impugned order dated 6.9.2004.
4. The contention of the appellant is that as Respondents 2 to 4 did not
challenge the proceedings before JMFC and only the first accused
approached the High Court, the High Court ought to have quashed the
proceedings only in regard to first accused and not against all the accused.
5. The offence alleged against Accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 is different from
the offence alleged against Accused No.1. Accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 did not
challenge the proceedings on the ground of want of sanction. Therefore,
High Court ought not to have quashed the entire proceedings.
6. In the result, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge in
so far as Accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are concerned. The appellant-complainant
would be at liberty to proceed with the case against Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5
and the learned Magistrate may proceed in the matter in accordance with
law. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.