LI Network
Published on: October 27, 2023 at 11:20 IST
The Jharkhand High Court, in a recent ruling on a rape case, emphasized the duty of a police officer to conduct an inquiry before registering an FIR when public servants are involved in alleged offenses during the discharge of their official duties.
This decision was made by a Single Bench of Justice Subhash Chand. The court’s objective is to prevent frivolous or harassing allegations against public servants, ensuring that such accusations are not made with ulterior motives or for extortion.
The case in question involved a public servant accused of a crime during the execution of official duties. The Trial Court’s decision to dismiss the petitioner’s discharge application was challenged through a criminal revision.
The petitioner’s senior counsel argued that the Trial Court’s decision was legally erroneous and did not consider the petitioner’s allegations, which were deemed untrue.
The police had filed a Final Report after their investigation, but the informant filed a protest-cum-complaint petition, leading to the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
It was also noted that the trial court did not rely on medical evidence that failed to show signs of rape or injury on the victim’s body.
The court refused to grant the petitioner’s discharge application. Furthermore, the informant’s statement in the FIR regarding her arrival time was found to be inconsistent with the railway station’s certificate, raising doubts about the timeline.
The High Court observed that the police officer had registered the FIR without conducting any prior inquiry, even though the investigating officer had found no evidence against the accused and submitted a final report. The Magistrate, when taking cognizance or framing charges, is required to direct the investigating officer to obtain prosecution sanction if they disagree with the investigation’s conclusion.
The purpose of prosecution sanction for a public servant is to shield them from frivolous and retaliatory criminal proceedings while discharging official duties. In this case, the victim’s statement about the rape was the only evidence, and the FIR’s contents were inconsistent with her subsequent statements. Moreover, there were no Call Detail Records (CDR) details related to the phone call made by the victim’s friend on her phone.
The Court noted that the FIR was lodged without a prior inquiry, and the Magistrate did not consider that the required prosecution sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) had not been obtained before framing the charges. Consequently, the High Court allowed the criminal revision, set aside the impugned order, and discharged the petitioner/accused from the alleged offense.
