TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in the absence of previous sanction, cognizance could be taken of a private complaint against a police officer for acts alleged to have been done in the course of investigation and custody, and whether the complaint ought to be quashed instead of relegating the accused to seek discharge.
Analysis: The protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act applies where the complained-of act has a reasonable connection with official duty, including acts done in excess of duty or under colour of duty. The decisive test is whether the alleged conduct is so connected with the discharge of official functions that it cannot be treated as wholly unconnected with them. Complaints against police officers arising from investigation and custody do not escape the sanction requirement merely because the allegations impute illegality or excess. Where the complaint is ex facie barred for want of sanction, the inherent power under Section 482 may be exercised to prevent abuse of process.
Conclusion: Cognizance could not be taken without prior sanction, and the complaint was liable to be quashed. The High Court erred in remitting the matter for discharge proceedings.
Final Conclusion: The statutory bar on cognizance for acts reasonably connected with official police duty was attracted, so the complaint could not be proceeded with in the absence of sanction.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged offence against a public servant or police officer bears a reasonable connection with the discharge of official duty or is done under colour of such duty, prior sanction is a condition precedent to cognizance, and proceedings taken without it may be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
