Title: Subodh Bara Babu @ Subodh Kumar Yadav vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr
Citation: Cr. Revision No.667 of 2022
Decided on: 18.10.2023
Coram: Justice Subhash Chand
Introduction
The Jharkhand High Court, in a recent judgment, underscored the obligation of police officials to carry out comprehensive investigations prior to the registration of First Information Reports. According to Justice Subhash Chand, the purpose of granting prosecution sanction to a public servant is to safeguard the public servant’s ability to carry out their official duties and activities without being subjected to unwarranted and vengeful criminal actions.
Facts of the case
The present criminal revision petition pertains to the challenge against the order issued by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, whereby the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner, Subodh Babu, a public official, has been alleged to have engaged in an act of sexual assault towards a female employee within the premises of the Employment Exchange Office located in Sahebganj. The focal point of the case pertained to a written complaint that was lodged by the informant, who concurrently served as the victim. The employee said that on the morning of November 26, 2009, she paid a visit to the Employment Exchange Office in Sahebganj. During their visit, she encountered Subodh Babu, the Head Clerk and the petitioner charged in the aforementioned case. Based on the complaint filed, Babu, who holds the position of Head Clerk, is identified as the accused in the case. Based on her allegation, Babu solicited a request from her and thereafter engaged in sexual misconduct with her. The accused, Subodh Babu, was charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) following the submission of a complaint. The petitioner raised a primary argument against the investigative procedures, asserting that there were several deficiencies in the investigation. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that their request for discharge was unjustly denied by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Court’s observation and analysis
In its verdict, the Court determined that the defendant is a public servant. It further established that when filing a First Information Report (F.I.R.) against a public servant for an alleged offense committed while performing official duties, it is the responsibility of the police officer to conduct a preliminary investigation prior to registering the F.I.R. The primary objective of this proposition is to prevent the lodging of baseless or vexatious accusations against public officials, which may be motivated by ulterior motives or intended for extortionary purposes.
In the present case, the police officer promptly filed a First Information Report (F.I.R) against the accused without conducting any preliminary investigation into the allegations made by the victim. However, upon completion of the inquiry, the investigating officer determined that there were no grounds to charge the accused and then submitted the final report. The trial court, which possessed knowledge and expertise, made a mistake in both recognizing and resolving the petitioner’s discharge motion without considering the provisions outlined in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the present instance, the sole account of the victim regarding the occurrence of rape is available, as she herself filed the First Information Report (F.I.R.). The information presented in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) significantly deviates from her subsequent statement. The call made by a friend of the victim on her phone does not have any Call Detail Records (CDR) available. The prosecutrix’s statement lacks corroboration from medical evidence, as no indications of rape were detected. The examination report of the vaginal swab, which was intended to corroborate the occurrence of rape during the investigation, was not gathered.
Moreover, the court said that the purpose of imposing prosecution sanctions on a public servant is to safeguard their ability to carry out their official duties and responsibilities without being subjected to unwarranted and vengeful criminal actions.
The court further expressed its opinion that, in the current instance, the accused being a public official, the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered without conducting any preliminary inquiry. Subsequently, following an investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) submitted the final report. Subsequently, the court in question acknowledged the evidence gathered by the investigating officer. The magistrate in question failed to consider that the necessary prosecution sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code had not been obtained prior to the day when the charge was framed. Therefore, the current criminal petition was granted.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Amrita Rout
