Delhi District Court
Pramod Kumar vs State on 13 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG THAKUR:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) (EAST DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 231/2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Pramod Kumar
(Assistant Sub-Inspector)
(Delhi Police)Presently Posted at
Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi.
2. Ashok Kumar Singh
(Assistant Commissioner of Police)
(Delhi Police) Presently Posted at
Anti-Corruption Branch of Delhi Police
Having office at :- Vikas Bhawan-II,
5th Floor, Upper Bela Road, Civil Lines,
Delhi-110054. .......Petitioners
Versus
1. State of NCT of Delhi
2. Sh. Jugal Kishore
S/o Late Sh. Janak Raj,
R/o X/2844, Gali No.5,
Raghuvarpura No.2
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 .....Respondents
Instituted on : 19.10.2024
Reserved on : 17.07.2025
Pronounced on : 13.08.2025
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by an order dated 10.11.2020 (passed by the
court of the then MM-05, East, KKD Courts) this revision
Cr. Rev. No.231/2024 Digitally Pages 1 of 15
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.08.13
16:50:09
+0530
petition has been filed inter alia on the grounds that the
complainant namely Jugal Kishore (respondent no. 2 in this
revision) deliberately concealed relevant and important facts
from the trial court in order to procure order dated 10.11.2020.
By virtue of the order dated 10.11.2020, the petitioners have
been summoned as accused persons for offence punishable u/s
325/34 IPC.
2. The petitioners contended that the respondent no. 2
is a habitual offender and he is also in the habit of filing false
cases. They further claimed that on 27.10.2012 when ASI
Surender Pal Hudda, PSI Surjeet, PSI Shiv Kumar, Ct. Naveen,
Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Harinder raided the house of respondent
no. 2 in connection with investigation of FIR no. 408/2012 PS
Krishna Nagar, then the respondent no. 2 tried to flee from the
spot due to which he fell down from stairs and sustained injuries
on various parts of body. Thereafter, he stood up and started
banging his head against the wall but he was prevented by the
police personnel from doing so. At the house of respondent no.
2, the co-accused (in FIR No. 408/2012 PS Krishna Nagar)
Balbir Singh @ Succhi was also found. Both the respondent no.2
and Succhi were apprehended, arrested and they were got
medically examined. Upon return to PS Krishna Nagar, a DD
entry no. 21A dated 27.10.2012 was got recorded by IO in
Roznamcha register of PS Krishna Nagar regarding the conduct
of respondent no. 2 Jugal Kishore and injuries sustained by him.
On the same day both the accused were produced before the Ld.
Duty MM who sent them to Judicial custody till 09.11.2012.
Cr. Rev. No.231/2024 Digitally
Pages 2 of 15
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.08.13
16:50:28
+0530
Thereafter, Jugal Kishore was produced before the Illaqua MM
on 09.11.2012, 08.12.2012 and 21.12.2012 but he never made
any complaint to either the Duty MM or the Illaqua MM
regarding the alleged incident of assault committed by police
personnel on 27.10.2012. The respondent no. 2 was admitted to
interim bail and he remained on bail from 20.11.2012 to
24.11.2012 but still no complaint regarding assault by police
personnel was made to any authority whatsoever. On 14.01.2013
respondent no. 2 was granted regular bail in FIR No. 408/2012
PS Krishna Nagar and only thereafter, he made complaints to the
Lt. Governor of Delhi and Commissioner of Police dated
18.01.2013. It is claimed that allegations in those complaints
were also made against the Ld. MM who granted remand on
27.10.2012 and against doctor who conducted the medical
examination of respondent no. 2 on that day.
3. It has been pleaded that an inquiry qua the
allegations levelled by respondent no.2 against the petitioners
was conducted by Vigilance Branch of Delhi Police but the
allegations were found to be baseless. The petitioners also
adumbrated that they were public servants who were acting in
discharge of their official duty and offence, if any allegedly
committed was in the course of their duty, therefore, the sanction
of the authority concerned was required u/s 1971 Cr.PC before
1 197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.
(1)When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public
servant not removable from his officer save by or with the sanction of the
Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by
him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty,Cr. Rev. No.231/2024 Digitally Pages 3 of 15
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.08.13
16:50:41
+0530
cognizance could have been taken by the Ld. MM concerned.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the case of his
clients is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Apex
Court in the case of G.C. Manjunath & Others. vs. Seetaram,
Criminal Appeal No. 1759 of 2025 decided on 03.04.2025. The
petitioners prayed that the order qua their summoning passed by
the then Ld. MM-05, East, KKD, Delhi be set aside as the same
is bad in law, contrary to facts and has been passed without
application of judicial mind.
4. Reply to the revision has been filed by respondent
no. 2 Jugal Kishore, wherein he claimed that the order dated
10.11.2020 is correct. He stated that the FIR No. 408/2012 PS
Krishna Nagar was sent for trial and he was acquitted from that
case by the court of Shri N. K. Malhotra, Ld. Special Judge,
POCSO Act, East, KKD vide judgment dated 31.07.2019. Heno Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous
sanction-(
(a)in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at
the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection
with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b)in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at
the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection
with the affairs of a State or the State Government :
[PROVIDED that where the alleged offence was committed by a person
referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued
under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State,
clause (b) will apply as if for the expression “State Government”
occurring therein, the expression “Central Government” were
substituted.]
Explanation. – For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no
sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any
offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section
166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section
354D, section 370, section 375, section 376, [section 376A, section
376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB,]Cr. Rev. No.231/2024 Pages 4 of 15
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.08.13
16:50:50
+0530
also pleaded that after acquittal, he made an application u/s 340
Cr.PC against the petitioners and other persons and vide order
dated 07.08.2024, the Ld. ASJ-06, Special Judge, POCSO Act,
East, KKD ordered that a complaint he sent to the court of Ld.
CJM, East District, alleging commission of offence punishable
u/s 211, 193, 195, 107 and 120B IPC against the petitioners and
other persons. He relied upon a catena of judgments to canvass
that proceedings in the present matter cannot be stopped for
want of sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC. He prayed that the revision
petition be dismissed being bereft of merit. He relied upon the
judgments in the case of Om Prakash Yadav vs. Niranjan Kumar
Upadhayaya, 2024 (15) SCALE 103; Shadakshari vs. State of
Karnataka and Anr., 2024 (1) SCALE 612; Raghubir Singh Bal
vs. Ravinder Singh Bakshi, 2008 (2) PCR (Criminal) 568; Tej
Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (2) CRL.L.R. (RAJ.) 1327,
Pyare Lal vs. Sita Ram Mamhoi; 1987 (31) DLT 140 &
Bakhshish Singh Brar vs. Gurmej Kaur, 1987 (2) SCALE 828, to
fortify his submissions.
5. I have cogitated over the rival submissions and
perused the record including the TCR. My observations on the
issues agitated are delineated hereinafter.
6. At the outset it is worthwhile to observe that a
revision petition is maintainable against summoning order.
Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment rendered by
Supreme Court of India in the case of Om Kumar Dhankar vs
State of Haryana & Anr., (2012) 11 SCC 252.
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
Cr. Rev. No.231/2024 2025.08.13 Pages 5 of 15
16:51:02
+0530
7. The first issue raised by respondent no.2 is that the
revision petition is not filed within the prescribed period of 90
days from the date of impugned order dated 10.11.2020. The
respondent no. 2 stated that the present petition was filed on
19.10.2024 almost four years after the date of the order under
challenge. He further stated that as per record the revisionist
no.2 Ashok Kumar Singh was served the summons of the
complaint case by HC Brahamdutt on 30.10.2023, so he had
knowledge about the order dated 10.11.2020 since the year
2023, therefore, the present petiton is time barred. The
revisionist no.2 had contended that HC Brahamdutt had never
talked to him on mobile number 9891250328 and this number
did not belong to him nor had he used the same at any point of
time. Mere information given to a person through telephone
about issuance of summons against him in the criminal case by a
court cannot be stated to be due service (without the supply of
copy of complaint and supporting documents) and it also cannot
be stated that the revisionist no.2 had information about the
passing of any summoning order against him till the file was
inspected by his counsel on 07.08.2024 and copy was applied for
and obtained. Thus, the limitation for filing the revision petition
in the present case shall be computed not from the date of the
order assailed but from the date of knowledge of order by the
petitioners. Not only this, the time spent in applying for and
obtaining the copy of order, documents etc. is to be excluded
while computing the limitation period. Taking into
consideration, all the facts and circumstances including the
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
Cr. Rev. No.231/2024 ANURAG THAKUR Pages 6 of 15
THAKUR Date:
2025.08.13
16:51:16
+0530
ordersheets of the complaint case, the revision petition is found
to have been filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
8. The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that he
was picked up from his house by the petitioners and their
associates and was taken to Police Post Seelampur where he was
beaten black and blue, he was stripped naked, then made to
spread his legs and was humiliated, he was also threatened by
the assailants. It is also alleged that he was not produced before
the Magistrate and without his physical production, the Ld. MM
sent him to judicial custody. The respondent no. 2 has also
stated that he told the doctor about the alleged history of assault
committed by the petitioners and their associates but under
pressure from SHO concerned, the doctor did not mention this
fact in the MLC. Whereas the version of the petitioners is that an
FIR No. 408/2012 PS Krishna Nagar was lodged against the
respondent no.2 and his associate on 26.10.2012. On
27.10.2012, some police personnel had visited the house of
respondent no.2 for conducting investigation but upon seeing the
police, the respondent no.2 tried to flee from the spot but in
doing so he suffered a fall from the staircase and thereafter upon
getting up on his feet, respondent no.2 started banging his head
against the wall but was somehow prevented by the police
personnel from causing serious harm to himself. The co-accused
in the aforementioned FIR namely Balbir Singh @ Succhi was
also apprehended from the house of respondent no.2. Regarding
the injuries sustained by respondent no.2, the police promptly
got recorded a DD on that very same day.
Cr. Rev. No.231/2024 Digitally
signed by Pages 7 of 15
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.08.13
16:51:25
+0530
9. The Ld. Trial Court had discussed the pre-
summoning evidence in detail in its summoning order and so far
as the appreciation of material produced before it is concerned,
the order of the trial court cannot be faulted. The Trial Court had
eloquently explained as to why each offence alleged by
respondent no.2 was prima facie not made out except the offence
punishable u/s 325/34 IPC. It is a matter of record that the CT
Scan of right scapula of respondent no.2 conducted on
27.10.2012 revealed ‘linear undisplaced fracture body of
scapula’, thus there was a break in the shoulder bone of
respondent no.2. It is also pertinent to observe that one
policeman (SI Amar Singh) against whom also allegations are
levelled, was not even posted at Krishna Nagar, as he had
already been transferred to 4th Battalion on 21.08.2012 i.e. two
months prior to the date of assault. In fact, in the vigilance
inquiry, it came to light that at the time of assault, SI Amar
Singh was on duty in the area of North District, Delhi. It is also
mentioned in the inquiry report that the CDR of mobile phone of
SI Amar Singh of that day does not show that he was present
within the territorial jurisdiction of PS Krishna Nagar. The
inquiry report also takes note of an inquiry conducted into the
same allegations by Joint CP, South Eastern Range on directions
of NHRC and even in that inquiry, the allegations made could
not be substantiated.
10. The order passed by the Trial Court, against accused
persons would have been correct but for the fact that the same
was passed against public servants acting in discharge of their
Digitally
Cr. Rev. No.231/2024 signed by
ANURAG
Pages 8 of 15
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.08.13
16:51:47
+0530
official duties. To investigate a case is the duty of the police. It is
not envisaged in section 197 Cr.PC that no offence would be
committed by the public servant in discharge of his duty, rather
it provides that if an offence is committed by public servant in
discharge of his duty, a prior sanction from the authority
concerned is required before taking cognizance of offence. To
commit an offence is not the business or duty of any public
servant but there may be circumstances in which a public servant
while discharging his duty may exceed his limits/authority
which may result in commission of some offence. It is in these
circumstances that section 197 Cr.P.C comes into operation to
the effect that a prior sanction from the authority concerned is
required to take cognizance of offence. At this stage, it is
apposite to reproduce the following extracts from the latest
judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case titled as G C
Manjunath (supra) which reads as under:-
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the
complainant/respondent herein has been prosecuting certain police
officers for their illegal activities. Due to this, the complainant
alleged that some police officers had engaged accused Nos.1 to 5,
who were also police officers, to take revenge against him.
Accused Nos.1 to 5 were serving at the Mahalakshmi Layout
Police Station, and accused No.6 is the daughter of the proprietor
of Bruna Weekly Magazine.
4. The complainant stated that in order to seek revenge, accused
Nos.1 to 5 lodged false complaints against the complainant and
registered fabricated cases. They also threatened him with dire
consequences. On 10.04.1999, at about 10:30 p.m., accused
Nos.2, 3, and 5 trespassed into his house, dragged him out, and
forcibly took him to the Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station.
There, the accused Nos.1 to 5 allegedly assaulted him after
stripping him of his clothes and continued to torture him
throughout the night.
5. On 11.04.1999, accused Nos.2, 3, and 5 allegedly procured a
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
Cr. Rev. No.231/2024 THAKUR Date:
2025.08.13
Pages 9 of 15
16:52:24
+0530
slate, forced the complainant to hold it with his name written on it,
and accused No. 6 took his photograph at that time. Subsequently,
the complainant was produced before the Magistrate after
registering false cases in Crime Nos.137 and 138 of 1999. The
complainant showed his injuries to the learned Magistrate, who
referred him to a hospital. He was later released and eventually
acquitted in the above cases.
6. It was further averred that on 27.10.1999, at about 9:45 p.m.,
accused Nos.3 to 5 stopped the complainant while he was riding
his scooter. They slapped him, engaged an autorickshaw, and took
him to the Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station. Accused No.1 was
present at the station and abused the complainant in filthy
language, demanding that he should withdraw the case filed by
him. It was further alleged that accused No.1 then instructed
accused No.3 to take possession of the complainant’s belongings.
Accused No.3 removed his gold chain, wristwatch, purse,
spectacles, and Rs.26,000/- in cash, wrapped them in
a handkerchief, and handed over the same to accused No.1.
Thereafter, they stripped the complainant of his clothes and
assaulted him throughout the night using a lathi and an iron rod
causing dislodgement of his tooth leading to profuse bleeding.
7. The complainant further stated that the accused persons
continued to torture the complainant and later produced him
before the Magistrate, registering a false case under Crime No.448
of 1999 for the offences under Section 392 of the IPC. The
complainant reported the ill-treatment to the learned Magistrate,
who directed the jail authorities to provide him with medical
treatment. He was released from custody and sought treatment at
Victoria Hospital on 04.11.1999.
8__________
9. Therefore, the complainant approached the Court of learned VII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru by filing a
private complaint P.C.R. No.6754 of 2007 dated 21.04.2007 and
prayed for taking cognisance of the offences punishable
under Sections196, 199, 200, 201, 211, 326, 327, 345, 338, 357, 3
68, 395, 397, 500, 501, 502, 506(b) read with Section 120B of the
IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 6.
———-
11. Thereafter, by order dated 07.05.2016, the learned VII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, held that there was
prima facie material to register the case against accused Nos.1 to 5
for the offences under Sections 326, 358, 500, 501, 502, 506 (b)
read with Section 34 of the IPC and accordingly ordered to
register a criminal case against accused Nos.1 to 5 as well as
issued summons against accused Nos.1 to 5. However, in the said
order, the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
found that the materials on record are insufficient to take
cognisance of the offence punishable
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
Cr. Rev. No.231/2024 THAKUR Date:
2025.08.13
Pages 10 of 15
16:52:39
+0530
under Sections196, 199, 200, 201, 211, 34, 338, 357, 367, 368, 39
5 and 397 of the IPC. Insofar as the aspect of delay in filling the
private complaint is concerned, the learned VII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate observed that sufficient material was
produced to prove that the complainant was pursuing this case by
way of writing letters/complaints to the Higher Officials. Further,
the charges against accused No.6 were dropped.
———-
23. It was further submitted that, in the present case, learned VII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate duly considered the
materials placed on record, which demonstrate that the
complainant had made consistent efforts from the year 2002 to
2006 to obtain sanction for prosecution. The learned Magistrate
has also noted that the complainant had addressed multiple
representations to the head of the department seeking the requisite
sanction; however, no conclusive or effective response was
forthcoming from the authorities. Learned counsel for the
complainant further pointed out that the High Court, in the
impugned order, similarly recorded that all necessary steps were
taken by the complainant to secure the sanction, but despite his
earnest efforts, the competent authority failed to grant the same.
———–
26. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties and after
a thorough examination of the material available on record, the
core issue that emerges for determination is, whether, the learned
VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was legally justified
in taking cognisance of the offences alleged against the accused
persons in P.C.R. No.6754/2007, in the absence of the prior
sanction contemplated under Section 197 of the CrPC
read with Section 170 of the Police Act. The real question,
therefore, is whether the acts complained of are reasonably
connected to, or performed, in the purported discharge of the
official duties of the accused persons, so as to attract the statutory
protection afforded by the said provisions.
————
30. A careful reading of Section 197 of the CrPC unequivocally
delineates a statutory bar on the Court’s jurisdiction to take
cognisance of offences alleged against public servants, save
without the prior sanction of the appropriate government. The
essential precondition for the applicability of this provision is that
the alleged offence must have been committed by the public
servant while acting in the discharge of, or purported discharge of,
their official duties. The protective mantle of Section 197 of the
CrPC, however, is not absolute; it does not extend to acts that are
manifestly beyond the scope of official duty or wholly
unconnected thereto. Acts bereft of any reasonable nexus to
official functions fall outside the ambit of this safeguard and do
not attract the bar imposed under Section 197 of the CrPC.
Digitally
Cr. Rev. No.231/2024 signed by Pages 11 of 15
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.08.13
16:52:48
+0530
————
32. This Court in B. Saha vs. M.S. Kochar, (1979) 4 SCC 177 (“B.
Saha”) observed that the words “any offence alleged to have been
committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official duty” employed in Section 197 of the
CrPC, are capable of a narrow as well as a wide interpretation.
This Court observed that if these words are construed too
narrowly, the section will be rendered altogether sterile, for, “it
is no part of an official duty to commit an offence, and never can
be”. In the wider sense, these words will take under their umbrella
every act constituting an offence, committed in the course of the
same transaction in which the official duty is performed or
purports to be performed. The right approach to the import of
these words lies between these two extremes. While on the one
hand, it is not every offence committed by a public servant while
engaged in the performance of his official duty, that is entitled to
the protection of Section 197 of the CrPC, an act constituting an
offence, directly and reasonably connected with his official duty
will require sanction for prosecution under the said provision. As
pointed out by Ramaswami, J. in Baijnath vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (AIR 1966 SC 220), “it is the quality of the act that is
important and if it falls within the scope and range of his official
duties, the protection contemplated under Section 197 CrPC will
be attracted”.
——————–
36. In light of the aforesaid judgments, the guiding principle
governing the necessity of prior sanction stands well crystallised.
The pivotal inquiry is whether the impugned act is reasonably
connected to the discharge of official duty. If the act is wholly
unconnected or manifestly devoid of any nexus to the official
functions of the public servant, the requirement of sanction is
obviated. Conversely, where there exists even a reasonable
link between the act complained of and the official duties of the
public servant, the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the CrPC
and Section 170 of the Police Act is attracted. In such cases, prior
sanction assumes the character of a sine qua non, regardless of
whether the public servant exceeded the scope of authority or
acted improperly while discharging his duty.
37. Turning to the case at hand, there is little doubt that the
allegations levelled against the accused persons are grave in
nature. Broadly classified, the accusations against the accused
persons encompass the following: (1) abuse of official authority
by the accused persons in allegedly implicating the complainant in
fabricated criminal cases, purportedly driven by malice or
vendetta; (2) physical assault and ill-treatment of the complainant
by the accused persons, constituting acts of alleged police excess;
(3) wrongful confinement of the complainant; and (4) criminal
intimidation of the complainant.
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
Cr. Rev. No.231/2024 ANURAG THAKUR Pages 12 of 15
THAKUR Date:
2025.08.13
16:52:55
+0530
38. In the circumstances at hand, we are of the considered opinion
that the allegations levelled against the accused persons, though
grave, squarely fall within the ambit of “acts done under colour of,
or in excess of, such duty or authority,” and “acting or purporting
to act in the discharge of his official duty,” as envisaged
under Section 170 of the Police Act and Section 197 of the CrPC
respectively. This Court, while adjudicating on instances of
alleged police excess, has consistently held in Virupaxappa and D.
Devaraja, that where a police officer, in the course of performing
official duties, exceeds the bounds of such duty, the protective
shield under the relevant statutory provisions continues to apply,
provided there exists a reasonable nexus between the impugned
act and the discharge of official functions. It has been
categorically held that transgression or overstepping of authority
does not, by itself, suffice to displace the statutory safeguard of
requiring prior government sanction before prosecuting the public
servant concerned.
The law laid down in this judgment is squarely applicable to the
facts of the present case. This court is conscious of the fact that
it has relied upon certain portions of the Vigilance Branch
inquiry report and copies of DD entries produced by the
petitioners but the same has been done in compliance of the
directions laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Om
Prakash Yadav (supra) which reads as follows:
74………..(iii) While deciding the issue of sanction, it is not
necessary for the Court to confine itself to the allegations made in
the complaint. It can take into account all the material on record
available at the time when such a question is raised and falls for
the consideration of the Court.
11. Upon perusal of the entire material available on
record including the numerous DD entries recorded/made on
27.10.2012, it can be ascertained that on 27.10.2012 at about
8:00-8-10 AM, ASI Surender Pal Hudda along with other
policemen went to house of Jugal Kishore in connection with
investigation of FIR No. 408/12 PS Krishna Nagar and after
apprehending him and co-accused Balbir Singh @ Succhi, they
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
Cr. Rev. No.231/2024 2025.08.13 Pages 13 of 15
16:53:02
+0530
took them to Police Post Seelampur and then the complainant
was taken for his medical examination at about 11:00 AM and
subsequently he was produced before the Duty MM who sent
him to judicial custody till 09.11.2012. Now either the police
officials exceeded their authority thereby causing injuries to
complainant or the injuries on person of Jugal Kishore were self
inflicted but he sustained injuries sometime between 8:00 AM to
11:00 AM (during the course of investigation into FIR No.
408/12 PS Krishna Nagar). Interrogation and investigation into
an FIR are part and parcel of duties of the petitioners. The
petitioner no.2 was the SHO of PS Krishna Nagar whose
primary duty was to ensure proper investigation of FIR
registered under his PS. Prior sanction from authority concerned
for prosecuting the petitioners was required before summoning
them. Since, no such sanction was obtained thus the order dated
10.11.2020 is set aside as the same is hit by the bar contained in
section 197 Cr.P.C. A provision somewhat akin to section 197
Cr.P.C is section 1402 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. Even as per2 140. Bar to suits and prosecutions.
(1) In any case of alleged offence by a police officer or other person, or of a wrong
alleged to have been done by such police officer or other person, by any act done
under colour of duty or authority or in excess of any such duty or authority, or
wherein it shall appear to the court that the offence or wrong if committed or done
was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained and
if entertained shall be dismissed if it is instituted, more than three months after the
date of the act complained of:
Provided that any such prosecution against a Police Officer or other person may
be entertained by the court, if instituted with the previous sanction of the
Administrator, within one year from the date of the offence.
(2)In the case of an intended suit on account of such a wrong as aforesaid, the
person intending to sue shall give to the alleged wrongdoer not less than one
month’s notice of the intended suit with sufficient description of the wrongCr. Rev. No.231/2024 ANURAG Pages 14 of 15
THAKUR
Digitally signed by
ANURAG THAKUR
Date: 2025.08.13
16:53:09 +0530
section 140 DP Act, the summoning order ought not to have
been passed without receipt of prior sanction from the
administrator.
Digitally
Dictated and announced ANURAG
signed by
ANURAG
THAKUR
in open Court on 13.08.2025 THAKUR Date:
2025.08.13
16:53:23
+0530(Anurag Thakur)
Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) (East)
Karkardooma Courts,
Delhicomplained of, and if no such notice has been given before the institution of the
suit, it shall be dismissed.
(3)The plaint shall set forth that a notice as aforesaid has been served on the
defendant and the date of such service and shall state what tender of amends, if
any, has been made by the defendant and a copy of the said notice shall be
annexed to the plaint endorsed or accompanied with a declaration by the plaintiff
of the time and manner of service thereof,
Digitally
Cr. Rev. No.231/2024 signed by
ANURAG
Pages 15 of 15
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.08.13
16:53:32
+0530