Bombay High Court
Shashikant S/O Jarichand Londhe And … vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Pso Ps … on 21 July, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:7009
Judgment
435 revn107.24
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.107 OF 2024
1. Shashikant s/o Jarichand Londhe,
age 38 years, occupation: service
r/o B-2, Sundernagar Apartment, Near
new RTO, Vijaypur Road, Solapur.
2. Karuna Kailas Chugule,
age 33 years, occupation: service,
r/o B-2, Sundernagar Apartment, Near
new RTO, Vijaypur Road, Solapur. ..... Applicants.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Pendhari,
district Gadchiroli.
2. Rohini Milind Madavi,
age 26 years, occupation labour,
r/o Karwafa, Tahsil Dhanora,
district Gadchiroli. ..... Non-applicants.
Shri R.R.Vyas, Counsel for Applicants.
Shri C.A.Lokhande, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Mrs.Punam Pisurde, Counsel Appointed for NA No.2.
.....2/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
2
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 02/07/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 21/07/2025
JUDGMENT
1. By this revision, the applicants have challenged
order dated 3.6.2024 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli (learned Judge below) in B-
Summary Case No.8/2023 by which process was issued
against applicants for offences punishable under Sections
294, 323, and 354(A)(iv) and 506 read with 34 of the
IPC and 3(1)(4), 3(1)(s), (1)(w), (2)3, and (2)(va) of
the The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Non-applicant No.2 (the informant) approached
the police station for lodging FIR on 20.3.2018 as there
was quarrel between her in-laws and relative Balaji and
the said relative had caught hold of her husband Milind
…..3/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
3
and, therefore, at about 9:00 am, she along with her
husband went to the police station to lodge the report.
At the relevant time, applicant No.1 was present who
convinced and suggested the informant not to lodge the
FIR and maintain peace. The informant and her husband
met the applicants and applicant No.1 allegedly used
abusive words against them and humiliated and insulted
them and had also beaten the husband of the informant
by means of belt. It is further alleged that he slapped the
informant twice and used abusive words on her caste.
Thereafter, she was pushed out of the police station, but
due to fear, the informant and her husband returned back
to their house. Thereafter, applicant No.2 came there and
threatened both ladies present along with the informant
and, thereafter, applicant No.2 insulted and abused the
informant and also assaulted her physically. They went
for medical examination to the Primary Health Centre,
…..4/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
4
Karwafa, but as the said Primary Health Centre was
closed, they approached the Government Hospital at
Gadchiroli whereat they were admitted for treatment.
On the basis of the said report, the police registered the
crime.
3. During investigation, statements of various
witnesses were recorded and as the investigating officer
could not found any substance in the allegations, he
submitted B-Summary Report and the same came to be
rejected by learned Judge below.
Hence, this revision.
4. Heard learned counsel Shri R.R.Vyas for the
applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri
C.A.Lokhande for the State, and learned counsel Mrs.
Punam Pisurde appointed for the informant.
…..5/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
5
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that
the entire investigation carried out by the investigation
officer reveals that in the alleged incident the informant
and her husband were assaulted and humiliated at public
place. He submitted that it is imperative on the part of
learned Judge below to assign reasons while rejecting the
B-Summary Report. He invited my attention to the order
impugned in the revision and submitted that the said
order nowhere reveals any reasoning while rejecting the
B-Summary Report. No separate reasons are assigned
and also learned Judge below has not taken into
consideration that the entire statements of the witnesses
nowhere support the case of the informant as far as the
provisions of the Atrocity Act are concerned.
He further raised the issue that an appropriate
sanction was not obtained in view of Section 197 of the
…..6/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
6
CrPC as the alleged act was committed by the applicants
while discharging their official duty and, therefore, he
prays that the revision be allowed.
6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for
the applicants placed reliance on following decisions:
1. Ravindra vs. State of Maharashtra, through PSO
and ors, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1051;
2. Dattaprabhu vs. State of Maharashtra, through
PSO, Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal and anr, reported
in 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1221, and
3. Criminal Appeal No.1759/2025 (G.C.Manjunath
and ors vs. Seetaram) decided by the Hon’ble Apex
Court on 3.4.2025.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State supported the B-Summary Report and
submitted that during the investigation, no substance is
found and, therefore, the B-Summary is filed.
…..7/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
7
8. Learned counsel appointed for the informant
submitted that learned Judge below has considered that
the act of present applicants of assaulting and humiliating
the informant and her husband is supported by the
material, which is prima facie sufficient to reject B-
Summary Report.
9. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for
the informant placed reliance on following decision:
1. P.K.Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim, rep. by the CBI,
reported in (2001)6 SCC 704;
2. Raj Kishor Roy vs. Kamleshwar Pandey and anr,
reported in 2002 CRI LJ 3780, and
3. Animesh Kumar and ors vs. State of UP and anr,
reported in 2025 AHC:46577.
10. In view of the above submissions, it is necessary to
go trough the relevant provisions of the CrPC.
…..8/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
8
11. The provisions of Section 156(1) and (2) of the
Code describes that statutory powers are given to officer
incharge of the police station to investigate cognizable
offence case. The similar powers are also assigned to the
authorized officer under the provisions of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and for the said purpose, the SDO is appointed as
an authorized officer for investigation.
12. Sections 169, 170, and 173 of the Code require to
be read together.
Section 169 read with Section 170 of the Code
shows that if upon an investigation under the provisions
of Chapter XII of the Code reveals to the officer incharge
of police station that there is no sufficient evidence or
reasonable grounds to suspicion to justify the prosecution
against the accused, he can release such persons after
…..9/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
9
taking bond requiring his appearance before the
Magistrate, if in future the same becomes necessary.
The report in Section 173(2) of the Code is
required to be submitted after completion of investigation
and even when the officer is of the opinion that no
sufficient material is against the accused.
In view of Section 173(2)(d), specific opinion
formed by the police officer is required to be mentioned
in the report.
Section 173(4) shows that the Magistrate can
reject the report.
13. Thus, the law is that the Magistrate is not bound to
accept such report.
14. Reading of Section 170 with 173 of the Code
reveals that if the investigating officer forms an opinion
…..10/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
10
that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds of
suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to the
Magistrate, such Officer shall forward the accused under
custody to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance
on Police report and to try the accused or to commit him
for trial.
Section 173 (2)(d) of the Code shows that it needs
to be specifically mentioned in the report filed under the
Section by the Investigating Officer that the offence has
been committed and if it has been committed, the name
of the accused, who is being forwarded to the Magistrate
for commission of the offence.
Section 173(2)(g) of the Code shows that it needs
to be informed to the Magistrate that the accused has
been forwarded to the Magistrate after forming opinion
as required under Section 170 of the Code. The definition
…..11/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
11
of police report is given in Section 2(r) of the Code which
shows that i) when the opinion is formed that it is not a
fit case for forwarding the accused under Section 170 and
case falls under Section 169 of the Code or ii) when the
opinion is formed that it is a fit case to forward the
accused under Section 170 of the Code, the report is
required to be prepared as per the provisions of Section
173 of the Code.
The provisions of Sections 173 and 190(1)(b) of
the Code together show that when such report is
submitted, there is discretionary power to the Magistrate
either to take cognizance of the offence or to refuse to
take cognizance.
15. Thus, the above provisions show that the
discretion is vested in the Magistrate, but such discretion
needs to be used judiciously. In a case, where a
…..12/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
12
Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of an offence
and drops proceedings, and there are insufficient grounds
against some persons mentioned in the FIR, the
Magistrate must give notice to the informant and give
him an opportunity to hear at the time of consideration of
the report. However, either from the provisions of the
Code or from the principles of natural justice, no
obligation on the Magistrate to issue notice to the injured
person or to relative of the deceased for providing such
persons an opportunity to hear at the time of
consideration of the report can be spelled out, unless
such persons are the informants who lodged the FIR. But,
even if such person is not entitled to notice from the
Magistrate, he can appear before the Magistrate and
make his submissions when the report is considered by
the Magistrate for the purpose of deciding what action he
should take on the report. But, if the Magistrate decides
…..13/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
13
that there is no sufficient ground to proceed further and
drop the proceedings or take the view that though there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against others
mentioned in the First Information Report, the informant
would certainly be prejudiced because the First
Information Report lodged by him would have failed of
its purpose; wholly or in part. Moreover, when the
interest of the informant in prompt and effective action
being taken on the First Information Report lodged by
him is clearly recognised by the provisions contained in
sub-section (2) of Section 154, sub-section (2) of Section
157 and sub-section (2) (ii) of Section 173, the officer of
the police station under Section 157(2) to notify to the
informant the fact that he is not going to investigate the
case and and under Section 73(2) the said officer is
under obligation to communicate the action taken by him
and report forwarded by him to the Magistrate. It must
…..14/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
14
be presumed that the informant would equally be
interested in seeing that the Magistrate takes cognizance
of the offence and issues process. There is no doubt that
on a consideration of the report made by the officer in-
charge of a police station under sub-section (2)(i) of
Section 173, the Magistrate is not inclined to take
cognizance of the offence and issue process, the
informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so
that he can make his submissions to persuade the
Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue
process.
16. It is well settled that if the court is of the opinion
that the ‘B’ Summary Report submitted by the police has
to be rejected, by expressing its judicious opinion, after
applying its mind to the contents of ‘B’ report, the court
has to reject the B-Summary Report..
…..15/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
15
17. It is well settled that if the court is of the opinion
that the B-Summary Report submitted by the police has
to be rejected, by expressing its judicious opinion, after
applying its mind to the contents of ‘B’ report, the court
has to reject the ‘B’ Summary Report.
18. The application of judicious mind is distributable
only in the order reasons are live-links between mind of
the decision taken to the controversy in question and the
decision arrived that. Reason and application of mind are
essential for judicial order to sustain scrutiny of law.
Admittedly, Reasons in every circumstances need not be
elaborate, but nevertheless should bear application of
mind.
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Vishnu
Kumar Tiwari vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in
AIR 2019 SC 3482, referring its earlier decision, held that
…..16/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
16
it is undoubtedly true that before a Magistrate proceeds
to accept a final report under Section 173 and exonerate
the accused, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to apply
his mind to the contents of the protest petition and arrive
at a conclusion thereafter. While the Investigating Officer
may rest content by producing the final report, which,
according to him, is the culmination of his efforts, the
duty of the Magistrate is not one limited to readily
accepting the final report. It is incumbent upon him to go
through the materials, and after hearing the complainant
and considering the contents of the protest petition,
finally decide the future course of action to be, whether
to continue with the matter or to bring the curtains
down.
20. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of
Ramswaroop Soni vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and
…..17/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
17
anr, reported in AIR 2019 SC 3801, also held that the law
is well-settled that in case a final report is filed under
Section 173(2) of the Code stating that no offence is
made out against the accused, any of the following
courses can be adopted by the Magistrate: (a) he may
accept the report which was filed by the police in which
case the proceedings would stand closed; (b) He may not
accept the report and may take cognizance in the matter
on the basis of such final report which was presented by
the police; and (c) if he is not satisfied by the
investigation so undertaken by the police, he may direct
further investigation in the matter.
The law is further well-settled that the judicial
discretion to be used by the Magistrate at such stage has
to fall in either of the three aforesaid categories.
…..18/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
18
21. The position is, therefore, now well settled that
upon receipt of a police report under section 173(2) of
the Code, a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of
an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if
the police report is to the effect that no case is made out
against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account
the statements of the witnesses examined by the police
during the investigation and take cognizance of the
offence complained of and order issuing of process to the
accused. Section 190(1)(b) does not lay down that a
Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the
investigation officer gives an opinion that the
investigation has made out a case against the accused.
The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by
the investigating officer and independently apply his
mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and
take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise his
…..19/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
19
powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of
process to the accused. Where the Magistrate decides
that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further
and drops the proceeding or takes the view that though
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against some,
and insufficient material in respect of the informant
would certainly be prejudiced. Therefore, notice to the
informant and grant of opportunity of being heard in the
matter becomes mandatory.
22. In the light of the above well settled legal
provisions, the facts of the present case show that report
is lodged on an allegation that there was dispute in the
house of the informant and she was abused by her
relatives and, therefore, she along with her husband
approached the police station to lodge the report.
…..20/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
20
Instead of taking report, they were abused and assaulted
by the applicants.
23. The statement of husband of the informant is also
on the similar line.
24. As per the statement of Geeta Ramteke, who is the
wife of Balaji, on the day of the incident, there was a
quarrel between her husband and husband of the
informant and husband of the informant approached the
police station to lodge the report. At about 9:00 am to
10:00 am, the applicants called the informant and her
husband at the police station. The wife of applicant No.1
was also present in the police station as she is also
serving in the police department. It is alleged that the
wife of applicant No.1 assaulted the informant as well as
her husband by belt and abused them on their caste.
…..21/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
21
25. The discharge card of the informant shows that
there were three injuries on her person in the nature of
contusions. The husband of the informant has also
sustained injuries which are multiple contusions and the
age of the injury is within 3-4 hours.
26. The statement of Geetabai Korewar also shows
that when she and another neighbour approached the
police station, they were threatened by the police
officials.
27. The subsequent statement of Geeta Ramteke shows
that the informant and her husband were not assaulted in
her presence.
28. Rest of the statements are of the police officers
who have not supported the contentions as to abuses on
caste.
…..22/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
22
29. Thus, the statements of the informant, her
husband, Geeta Ramteke, and photographs of the police
station disclose the presence of applicants in the police
station as well as presence of the informant and her
husband. The documents on record sufficiently show
that the informant belongs to the Scheduled Caste. As
per the allegations levelled against them, they assaulted
the informant and her husband by means of belt and by
fist and kick blows. The injuries on the persons of the
informant and her husband are sufficient to show that
they were assaulted either by means of kick blows or by
blunt object.
30. Thus, the investigation papers substantiate the
allegations levelled against the applicants.
…..23/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
23
31. The another ground raised in the application is
that the alleged incident has taken place while
discharging official duty.
32. The applicants are police officers and prior
sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was not obtained
from the Government before prosecuting against the
accused persons.
33. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance
on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
G.C.Manjunath and ors vs. Seetaram, reported in 2025
LiveLaw (SC) 399 wherein it is held that a careful
reading of Section 197 of the CrPC unequivocally
delineates a statutory bar on the Court’s jurisdiction to
take cognizance of offences alleged against public
servants, save without the prior sanction of the
appropriate government. The essential precondition for
…..24/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
24
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.
34. Section 197 of the CrPC requires prior sanction
where a public official is accused of having committed
“any offence alleged to have been committed by him
while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his
official duty.” The underlying rationale of both these
statutory provisions is to safeguard public functionaries
…..25/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
25
from frivolous or vexatious prosecution for actions
undertaken in good faith in the discharge of, or purported
discharge of, their official duties, thereby ensuring that
the fear of litigation does not impede the efficient
functioning of public administration.
35. In the case of in B.Saha vs. M.S.Kochar, reported in
(1979)4 SCC 177 it has been 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. It is
also 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
…..26/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
26
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.
36. In the case of Baijnath vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, reported in (AIR 1966 SC 220), the Hon’ble
Apex Court observed that 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 of the CrPC will be attracted.
…..27/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
27
37. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Amod
Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy,
(2023) 16 SCC 239, held that the State performs its
obligations through its officers/public servants and every
function performed by a public servant is ultimately
aimed at achieving public welfare. Often, their roles
involve a degree of discretion. But the exercise of such
discretion cannot be separated from the circumstances
and timing in which it is exercised or, in cases of
omission, when the omission occurs. In such
circumstances, the courts must address, whether the
officer was acting in the discharge of official duties. It
was observed that even when an officer acts under the
purported exercise of official powers, they are entitled to
protection under Section 197 of the CrPC. This protection
exists for a valid reason so that the public servants can
perform their duties fearlessly.
…..28/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
28
38. In the case of G.C.Manjunath and ors vs. Seetaram
supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the
provisions of Section 197 of the CrPC read with section
170 of the Karntaka Police Act, observed that the law
does not offer protection if the official role is used as a
mere excuse to commit wrongful acts. However, it was
held that the protection of prior sanction will be available
when there is a reasonable connection between the act
and their duty. While enunciating when the protection of
prior sanction will be applicable, this Court held that
even if a police officer exceeds his official powers, as long
as there is a reasonable connection between the act and
his duty, they are still entitled to the protection requiring
prior sanction. Excessiveness alone does not strip them of
this safeguard. The language of both Section 197 of the
CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act is clear that
sanction is required not only for acts done in the
…..29/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
29
discharge of official duty as well as for the acts purported
to be done in the discharge of official duty and/or acts
done “under colour of or in excess of such duty or
authority.
39. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.K.Pradhan
vs. State of Sikkim supra held that the legislative
mandate engrafted in sub section (1) of Section 197
touches the jurisdiction of the court itself. It is a
prohibition imposed by the statute from taking
cognizance. Different tests have been laid down in
decided cases to ascertain the scope and meaning of the
relevant words occurring in Section 197 of the Code; any
offence alleged to have been committed by him while
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official
duty. No question of sanction can arise under Section
197, unless the act complained of is an offence; the only
…..30/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
30
point for determination is whether it was committed in
the discharge of official duty. There must be a reasonable
connection between the act and the official duty. It does
not matter even if the act exceeds what is strictly
necessary for the discharge of the duty, as this question
will arise only at a later stage when the trial proceeds on
the merits. What a court has to find out is whether the act
and the official duty are so inter-related that one can
postulate reasonably that it was done by the accused in
the performance of official duty. Thus, from the various
decisions, it will be clear that for claiming protection
under Section 197 of the Code, it has to be shown by the
accused that there is reasonable connection between the
act complained of and the discharge of official duty. An
official act can be performed in the discharge of official
duty as well as in dereliction of it. For invoking protection
under Section 197 of the Code, the acts of the accused
…..31/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
31
complained of must be such that the same cannot be
separated from the discharge of official duty, but if there
was no reasonable connection between them and the
performance of those duties, the official status furnishes
only the occasion or opportunity for the acts, then no
sanction would be required. If the case as put forward by
the prosecution fails or the defence establishes that the
act purported to be done is in discharge of duty, the
proceedings will have to be dropped.
40. In the present case, the applicants are claiming
that they did not abuse their position as public servants.
The statements of the witnesses and the medical
certificates show that the informant and her husband had
been to the police station for lodging report and they
were assaulted. At this stage, these statements and
medical certificates, after taking at their face value,
…..32/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
32
establish a prima facie case to constitute the offence.
Perusal of the record shows that the informant has made
allegations that she was assaulted on 20.3.2018 as there
was quarrel between her and her relatives and her
relative caught hold her husband and assaulted him and,
therefore the informant and her husband went to the
police station and lodged the report . At the relevant
time, applicant No.1 was present and convinced her not
to lodge the FIR. The informant and her husband met
applicant No.1, but applicant No.1 used abusive words
against them and the husband was assaulted with belt.
The informant was also manhandled. Their presence in
the police station and injuries sustained by them support
the said version. The statements of the informant’s
husband, Geeta Ramteke, Geetabai Korewar, and Mumtaj
Pathan, and Shalu Bawane also corroborate the version.
The medical certificate of the informant shows that she
…..33/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
33
has sustained contusions over right cheek, contusion
abrasions over right knee, and tenderness over scalp.
The husband of the informant has also sustained injuries
i.e. multiple contusions over back, redness over both
knees and injury left arm.
41. So, the factual aspect of the prima facie case is
made out against the applicants. The act/offence
committed by the applicants can safely be said to have
been outside the scope of their official duty and,
therefore, sanction for prosecution is not required.
Merely because the applicants are police officials, it
would not provide any shield to them. There is no direct
or reasonable connection between their act and the
official duty and, therefore, the order impugned rejecting
the B-Summary Report and issuance of summons is legal
and proper and no interference is called for.
…..34/-
Judgment
435 revn107.24
34
42. In this view of the matter, the Criminal Revision
Application being devoid of merits is liable to be
dismissed and the same is dismissed.
43. Fees of learned counsel Mrs. Punam Pisurde
appointed for the non-applicant No..2 be quantified and
the same be paid to her as per Rules.
Revision stands disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
!! BrWankhede !!
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge …../-
Date: 22/07/2025 16:52:09