Karnataka v. SRI BHARGAV G.,ADVOCATE)

(BY SRI SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. RANGASWAMY, S/O HICHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, FORMERLY AT KRISHNARAJAPET CITY PS, KRISHNARAJPET TALUK, MANDYA DIST - 571 426. NOW R/AT T.BEGUR, NELAMANGALA, GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53984 CRL.RP No. 316 of 2023 HC-KAR TUMKURU MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 562 123. (BY SMT. NANDINI B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI BHARGAV G.,ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2022 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION AT JMFC, K.R. PETE IN C.C.NO.9/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE A, WHEREIN THE ACCUSED IS DISCHARGED BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 245 OF CR.P.C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging impugned order dated 21.12.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., K.R.Pet, in C.C.no.9/2014, this revision petition is filed.

Sri Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel for petitioner submitted revision petition was by defacto complainant challenging order passed by trial Court on an application filed by respondent (accused) for discharge. It was submitted, petitioner herein had filed PCR.no.2/2014 as per Annexure-D alleging offence punishable under Sections 217, 218, 219, 323, 324, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53984 CRL.RP No. 316 of 2023 HC-KAR Indian Penal Code, 1860, ('IPC', for short) against accused. In said petition, after recording sworn statement of complainant on 06.01.2014, trial Court had taken cognizance. At that time, trial Court had taken note of need for prior sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short) as accused was serving as Police Sub-Inspector and opined that nature of allegations did not require sanction.

It was submitted, said order was challenged by accused before this Court in Criminal Petition no.1868/2014 which was dismissed on 12.09.2014 by observing whether there was need for sanction could be ascertained only on conclusion of trial. Subsequently, in course of recording of evidence of PW-1, accused had filed application for discharge on sole ground that accused being Police Sub-Inspector, was protected under Section 197 of CrPC and could not be prosecuted without prior sanction. Accepting said reason, impugned order was passed.

It was submitted, when trial Court at time of taking cognizance had opined that prior sanction would not be necessary and in challenge against said order, this Court had - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53984 CRL.RP No. 316 of 2023 HC-KAR opined question whether prior sanction would be necessary could be asserted only on conclusion of trial, consideration of application for discharge by trial Court before conclusion of trial was erroneous and contrary to law and called for interference. On said ground sought for allowing revision petition.

Smt. Nandini B., learned counsel appearing for Sri G. Bhargav, advocate for respondent (accused) opposed revision petition. It was submitted that Section 227 of CrPC provided for consideration of application for discharge at any time. Admittedly, prior sanction in instant case had not been obtained. Therefore, there was no error committed by trial Court. Attention was drawn to observation by trial Court in para 11 of impugned order and there was no dispute that accused is a police officer. One more reason assigned was failure to produce document by complainant to establish injuries. Therefore, impugned order was justified.

In reply, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had got marked Wound Certificate as Ex.P19 which was not even referred. Copy of same was produced as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53984 CRL.RP No. 316 of 2023 HC-KAR Annexure-G to this petition. Therefore observation was contrary to record.

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order.

Undisputed facts in instant case are accused is a serving Police Officer and incident in question occurred while he was in service and there is no prior sanction. But, it is seen, at time of taking cognizance trial Court had observed that action of accused could not be stated to be committed in discharge of his Official duties and therefore protection under Section 197 of CrPC would not lie. In challenge against said order, this Court opined that same could be decided only after conclusion of trial.

Such being case, passing of impugned order of discharge, midway trial that too before conclusion of evidence of complainant would be contrary to observation made by this Court in Criminal Petition no.1868/2014. As such, impugned order would be unsustainable. It would have been appropriate for trial Court to have deferred consideration of application till conclusion of trial. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53984 CRL.RP No. 316 of 2023 HC-KAR