STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. v. PASTOR P. RAJU

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 269

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: G.P. MATHUR, DALVEER BHANDARI

Case summary

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. v. PASTOR P. RAJU.pdf

Judgment text

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. v. PASTOR P. RAJU AUGUST 4, 2006 [G. P. MATHUR AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ. ] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 173, 196(1A) and 482-lndian Penal Code, 1860-Section 153B-Criminal case registered against accused under section l 53B lPC-Accused was arrested and was remanded to judicial custody by Magistrate-Petition before High Court filed by the accused to quash the criminal proceedings-High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that previous sanction required under section 196(JA) Cr. P. C.

from appropriate authority has not been obtained-Correctness of-Held, previous sanction is required onlyfor taking cognizance ofan offence by Court and not for registration of a criminal case and conducting investigation thereof- Order ofMagistrate remanding an accusedjudicial to custodyfor investigation does not amount to taking cognizance ofan offence by Court-On facts, the criminal proceedings was only at investigation stage-Inherent power cannot be exercised by High Court to interfere with the statutory power ofpolice to conduct investigation in a cognizable offence-Hence, the High Court was in error in quashing the criminal proceedings. Respondent, who is a member of Christian community, made an appeal to people to get themselves converted to Christian religion and thereby entitling themselves many benefits and. facilities. An FIR was lodged and a case has been registered against the respondent under section p 1538 IPC.

The respondent was arrested by the police and was produced before a Magistrate who remanded him to judicial custody. The respondent moved a bail application before the Magistrate which was rejected on the ground that the offence is a non-bailable offence. The respondent filed a petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. before High Court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him contending that the criminal proceedings initiated under section 1538 IPC were illegal and without jurisdiction on the ground of non-obtaining of the required previous sanction from appropriate authority under section 196(1A) Cr. P. C. The High Court allowed the petition of the respondent and quashed the criminal proceedings. Hence the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. I. The bar created under section 196(1A) IPC is against taking of cognizance of an offence by the Court.

There is no bar against registration of a criminal case or investigation by the police agency or submission of a report by the police on completion of investigation as contemplated by Section 173 Cr. P. C. If a criminal case is registered, investigation of the offence is done and the police submits a report as a result of such investigation before a Magistrate without the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the Dist. rict Magistrate, there will be no violation of Section 196(1A) Cr. P. C. and no illegality of any kind would be committed. 1274-B-D] 1. 2. The cognizance of an offence is taken at the initial stage when the Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the facts mentioned in a complaint or to police report or upon information received from any other person that an offence has been committed.

The issuance of process is at a subsequent stage when after considerin~ the material placed before it the Court decides to proceed against the offenders against whom a prima facie case is made out. Neither any complaint had been filed nor any police report had been submitted nor any information had been given by any person other than the police officer before the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence. The Magistrate had merely passed an order remanding the respondent to judicial custody. A limited role has to be performed by the Judicial Magistrate to whom the accused has been forwarded, viz. , to authorize his detention under section 167 Cr. P. C. This is anterior to Section 190 Cr. P. C. which confers power upon a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence. Therefore, an order remanding an accused to judicial custody does not amount to taking cognizance of an offence. In such circumstances, Section I96(1A) Cr. P. C.

can have no application at all and the High Court clearly erred in quashing the proceedings on the ground that previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate had not been contained. '. fhe specified authority empowered to grant sanction docs so after applying his mind to the material collected during the course of investigation. There is no occasion for grant of sanction soon after the FIR is lodged nor such a power can be exercised before completion of investigation and collection of evidence. Therefore, the whole premise on STATE OF KARNATAKA v. PASTOR P. RAJU 271 the basis of which the proceedings have been quashed by the High Court is wholly erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside. [276-B-H; 277-A-Cj R. R. Chari v. Stale of U. P. , AIR (1951) SC 207; Darshan Singh Ram Krishan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1971) SC 2372; Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas v. The State of West Bengal, AIR (1959) SC 1018; Kishun Singh and Ors.

v. State ofBihar, [1993[ 2 SCC 16 and State of West Bengal v. Mohd. Khalid and Ors. , [1995[ I SCC 684, referred to. 1. 3. No report as contemplated by Section 173 Cr. P. C. had been submitted by the incharge of the police station concerned to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. Section 482 Cr. P. C. saves inherent powers of the High Court and such a power can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings pending in any Court but the power cannot be exercised to interfere with the statutory power of the police to conduct investigation in a cognizable offence. The High Court ought not to have interefered with and quashed the entire proceedings in exercise of power conferred by Section 482 Cr. P. C. when the matter was still at the investigation stage. [277-D-E; 278-A-BJ Union oflndi. i v. Prakash P. Hinduja and Anr.

, [2003] 6 SCC 195; King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR (1945) PC 18; H. N. Rishbud and lnder Singh v. The State ofDelhi, AIR (1955) SC 196; State of West Bengal v. SN Basak, AIR (1963) SC 447; Abhinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR (1968) SC 117 and State ofBihar and Anr. v. JAC Saldanha and Ors. , [1980[ 1 sec 554, referred to. 4. The High Court has observed in its judgment that the initiation of criminal proceedings is abuse of process of Court and miscarriage of justice. No reasons in support of the observation have been given. The case was still under investigation and the police was in the process of collecting evidence. The sweeping remark made by the High Court in the circumstances of the case was wholly unjustified. [278-Cj CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 2006. From the Order dated 23. 2. 2005 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No. 437/2005. 272 SL:PREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S. C. R. Sanjay R.

Hegde for the Appellants. Jawahar Raja, P. Ramesh Kumar and Aparna Bhat for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G. P. MATHUR, J. Leave· granted. 2. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23. 2. 2005 of Karnataka High Court by which initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondent under Section 153-B IPC were quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C. 3. One R. N. Lokesha son of R. S. Narayanappa resident of Ramapura, Channapatna, lodged an FIR alleging that at about 7. 30 p. m. on 14. 1. 2005, he along with some other persons was celebrating Sankranthi festival when the respondent Pastor P. Raju, who is a member of Christian community, came there and made an appeal to them to get converted to Christian religion where they would get many benefits and facilities which were not available to them in Hindu religion to which they belong.

It is also alleged that many persons who were present there resented the appeal made by the respondent and strongly opposed the plea or assertion for their conversion from Hindu religion to Christian religion. On the basis of the FIR, a case as Crime No. 8 of 2005 was registered under Section 153-B ! PC at the concerned police station. The respondent was arrested on 15. 1. 2005 and was produced before a Magistrate on the same day who remanded him to judicial custody as no application for bail had been filed. Subsequently, a bail application was moved und nferred by Section 482 Cr. P. C. when the matter was still at the investigation stage. 12. In the concluding paragraph of the judgment under challenge, the High Court has also observed that considering the facts and circumstances and the allegations made in the complaint it could be said that the initiation of criminal proceedings is abuse of process of Court and miscarriage of justice.

No reasons in support of the aforesaid observation have been given. As already stated, the case was still under investigation and the police was in the process of collecting evidence. The sweeping remark made by the High Court in the circumstances of the case was wholly unjustified. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 23. 2. 2005 of the High Court is set aside. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is only for the limited purpose of deciding the appeal and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. B. S. Appeal allowed. •