Click the Play button to listen to article

The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash an FIR against former Superintendent of Police of Chikkamagalur district [accused no.1] accused of hurling a paperweight at a subordinate officer during over being allegedly absent from sports activities. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 344]

However, the single judge bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani has quashed the FIR against the former Inspector [accused no.2] accused of abusing the complainant.

The court held that while the former Inspector's alleged acts of reprimanding the complainant for skipping sports activities had a nexus with maintaining discipline in a uniformed force, the former SP's alleged act of calling the complainant to his chamber, locking the door and hitting him with a paperweight causing a bleeding eyebrow injury could not be considered a 'bona fide exercise of official duty'.

“…Allegation about physical assault and causing grievous injury do not appear to have connection with official duty. Moreso, at this stage when prosecution material has to be examined in unrebutted state. Whether circumstances necessitated such action by accused no.1, whether there was any reasonable explanation for incident or whether incident occurred as alleged would require to be addressed at appropriate stage. Accused no.1 would not be justified in calling upon this Court to ignore above observations merely claiming that contentions urged herein are different or there were changed circumstances, without pointing any…”, the court noted in the order.

While doing so, the court also applied the 'nexus test' under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (KPA) to determine whether the alleged acts were connected to official duty.

“…In instant case, complainant as well as accused were Police Officers and belong to an 'uniformed Force' required to perform duty round the clock and for which personnel require to maintain discipline. Acts complained of insofar as accused no.2 are clearly about admonishing complainant for non-participation in Sports Activities, about verbal threats etc. appear for purposes of maintaining discipline and indisputably have nexus with duty or in worst case, within reasonable excesses…”, the court noted further.

On sanction, the Court held that obtaining sanction for prosecution of government servants, including police officers, is mandatory. However, since the proceedings had crossed the stage of taking cognizance, it was appropriate to apply the nexus test to the overt acts alleged and determine whether they were wholly or reasonably connected to the discharge of official functions.

Hence, the court upheld the FIR against former SP Vikash Kumar Vikash under IPC Sections 342(Wrongful Confinement), 324(Voluntarily Causing Hurt by Dangerous Weapons or Means), 114(Abettor present when offense is committed), 504(Intentional Insult with Intent to Provoke Breach of Peace), 506(Criminal Intimidation) read with 34(common intention) IPC.

Earlier, in a connected revision matter on sanction against the former SP, the court had noted that the protection under Section 197 CrPC cannot be used as a 'guard of honour' for excesses by a public servant.

The complainant, a Police Sub-Inspector (Crime) at Mallandur Police Station had alleged in 2012 January, while he was on duty, Accused No.2- former Circle Inspector of Police-called him over the phone and enquired about his absence from sports activities.

When the complainant responded that he was on duty at the Crime Branch, Mallandur Police Station since December 2011, due to ill-health, accused no.2 allegedly abused him, threatened departmental enquiries, and informed accused no.1-the Superintendent of Police.

Later, the complainant was escorted to the office of accused no.1- former Superintendent of Police who allegedly threatened the complainant and hurled a paper weight towards him.

An FIR was registered on September 3, 2012 on the incident; however, a B Report came to be filed later. After the complainant filed a protest petition, the Magistrate took cognizance on July 4, 2015, and directed summons to the accused for the aforesaid offences.

Case Title: Panchaksharaiah v. G.S. Chandrashekar & Another; Vikash Kumar Vikash v. G.S. Chandrashekar & Another

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 8397 of 2021 c/w Criminal Petition No. 1694 of 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 344

Click Here To Read/Download Order




Tags: