Supreme Court restores summons, clarifies revision petitions & public servant acts.

Urmila Devi Versus Yudhvir Singh

Urmila Devi Versus Yudhvir Singh - 2013 (16) SCR 542, 2013 (15) SCC 624, 2013 (14) JT 262, 2013 SCALE 513 Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
2. Requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting a public servant.
3. Nature of the acts committed by the respondent and their connection to official duties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Revision Petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
The appellant contended that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had no power to recall or review its own order summoning the accused, including the respondent. The appellant argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. as the orders dated 30.07.2001 and 17.04.2007 were interim orders, and hence, the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. would operate. The High Court, however, upheld the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, stating that an order issuing summons is an intermediate order and hence, revisable under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court clarified that an order issued by the Magistrate deciding to summon an accused under Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. is an intermediate or quasi-final order, not an interlocutory order. Therefore, the revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is available to the aggrieved party. This position was supported by several precedents, including K.K. Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande vs. Uttam.

2. Requirement of Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for Prosecuting a Public Servant
The appellant argued that the respondent's actions were not in the course of discharging his official duties as an SDM and hence, did not require sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The High Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the respondent, acting as an SDM, required sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before being prosecuted.

The Supreme Court examined whether the acts complained of were committed while the respondent was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. The Court noted that the respondent's actions, such as entering the appellant's house, conducting a search, and subjecting the appellant and R.C. Chopra to medical examination, were not connected to his official duties. The Court held that the respondent's actions were high-handed and not performed in his capacity as an Executive Magistrate. Therefore, the invocation of Section 197 Cr.P.C. was uncalled for, and the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court were set aside.

3. Nature of the Acts Committed by the Respondent and Their Connection to Official Duties
The appellant alleged that the respondent, along with other officials, forcibly entered her house, harassed her and R.C. Chopra, and conducted an unlawful search and medical examination. The Supreme Court examined whether these actions could be construed as being performed in the discharge of official duties.

The Court found that the respondent's actions were not supported by any lawful justification and had no connection with his duties as an SDM. The Court emphasized that public functionaries cannot resort to harassment and humiliation of citizens under the guise of performing official duties. The Court concluded that the respondent's actions were not in the discharge of his official duties, and hence, the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not applicable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restored the summons issued by the learned trial Court, and directed the trial Court to proceed with the hearing expeditiously. The Court also imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the respondent payable to the appellant. The judgment clarified the maintainability of revision petitions under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and the scope of Section 197 Cr.P.C. concerning acts performed by public servants in their official capacity.