Face trial: Karnataka High Court to Police Inspector who tore bail order, abused judge

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash proceedings in a private complaint against a police inspector accused of tearing a bail order and abusing the judge [Sri Harish V vs Sri Narayanaswamy @ JCB Narayan]..Justice K Natarajan rejected officer Harish V’s contention that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the complaint without a sanction under provisions of Karnataka Police Act and Code of Criminal Procedure since he had committed the alleged offence while discharging official duty.The Court said the offences were committed by Harish in his individual capacity. “Tearing the bail order, throwing on the ground, abusing the Sessions Judge, who granted bail, in filthy language stating that he is the judge for his police station and he has to decide the case, and the bail order is similar to that of his hair, are all nothing to do with discharge of the official duty,” the Court added..The Court also said that the Police Department should have taken action against Harish by “conducting departmental enquiry for doing such type of activities by him.”Such a police officer should be tried and punished in accordance with law, it asserted..According to the private complaint, Harish, who was a sub-inspector at the time of incident, had refused to respect the anticipatory bail order passed in favour of the complainant and tore it when handed over by his advocates. He is also alleged to have abused the Sessions Judge, who granted the bail to the complainant and threatened to open a rowdy sheet against the complainant by fixing false cases against him and also threatened to kill him in an encounter..The Magistrate after receipt of the complaint and sworn affidavit of the complainant had taken cognizance of the offences and issued summons to Harish. He challenged the order before High Court, saying no complaint had been filed with the police against him by the advocates and that he did not have any revolver as it had already been seized in connection with another criminal case..Considering the arguments and available record, Justice Natarajan noted that CCTV footage and other video recordings revealed that the accused had disrespected the court order and also abused the Sessions Judge.The Court also opined that the alleged offences committed by Harish fell under Sections 166A, 340, 350, 499 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) which are cognizable offences.It explained that Section 166A of IPC is applicable since Harish had disobeyed a legal direction.“Section 340 of IPC is for wrongful confinement of the complainant, Section 350 of IPC is showing Criminal force on the complainant, Section 499 of IPC is spoken words by damaging reputation of the judiciary, Section 506 is criminal intimidation and Section 25 of Arms Act is using the weapon illegally,” the Court said. .Thus, the Court reasoned that the offences committed by the accused show that he was not discharging the official duty but wilfully and intentionally defaming the judiciary and disobeying the anticipatory bail order.“Therefore, Section 197 of Cr.P.C. will not come to the aid of the petitioner-accused where protection is given to the public authority from the Constitution,” it said while rejecting the argument on prior sanction..The Court further noted that the advocates, who had handed over the bail order, had given evidence regarding the “rude behaviour” of the accused against the court as well as the complainant. In conclusion, the Court said the accused was required to go to trial. “Such a person like petitioner who is no respect of law cannot be shown any sympathy by the court and it is not a fit case for quashing the Criminal proceedings against him,” the Court said while dismissing the petition..Advocate VF Kumbar represented the petitioner.Advocate Chetan Jadhav represented the respondent.[Read Judgment]