Rampyare and ors. Vs. Rampyari

Decided On : Jan-23-2004

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rampyare and ors. Vs. Rampyari Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 397/401',
			(int) 1 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 34',
			(int) 5 => 'Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 200',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 8 => 'Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 13 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 14 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 15 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 16 => 'Section 202',
			(int) 17 => 'Section 202(2',
			(int) 18 => 'Section 202',
			(int) 19 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 20 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 21 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 22 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 23 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 24 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 25 => 'the Criminal Procedure No'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Jain',
			(int) 1 => 'Criminal Revision No',
			(int) 2 => 'Kalka Prasad',
			(int) 3 => 'Criminal Revision No',
			(int) 4 => 'Kalka Prasad',
			(int) 5 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 6 => 'Criminal Revision No',
			(int) 7 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
			(int) 8 => 'Kalka Prasad',
			(int) 9 => 'Criminal Revision',
			(int) 10 => 'Criminal Revision',
			(int) 11 => 'Kalka Prasad',
			(int) 12 => 'P.S. Uchchra',
			(int) 13 => 'Sessions Court',
			(int) 14 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 15 => 'Kalka Prasad',
			(int) 16 => 'Kalka Prasad',
			(int) 17 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 18 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 19 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 20 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 21 => 'Criminal Revision',
			(int) 22 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 23 => 'S.I. Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 24 => 'Constable Virendra Prasad',
			(int) 25 => 'Constable Virendra Prasad',
			(int) 26 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 27 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 28 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 29 => 'Police Station, Uchehra',
			(int) 30 => 'S.I. Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 31 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 32 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 33 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 34 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 35 => 'Kalka Prasad',
			(int) 36 => 'Criminal Revision No',
			(int) 37 => 'Kailash',
			(int) 38 => 'the Additional Sessions',
			(int) 39 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
			(int) 40 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
			(int) 41 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 42 => 'S.I.',
			(int) 43 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 44 => 'the Court of Session',
			(int) 45 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 46 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 47 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 48 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 49 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 50 => 'Court',
			(int) 51 => 'Court',
			(int) 52 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 53 => 'the District Magistrate',
			(int) 54 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 55 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 56 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 57 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 58 => 'Court',
			(int) 59 => 'Learned Additional Sessions',
			(int) 60 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 61 => 'Sections 227',
			(int) 62 => 'Court',
			(int) 63 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
			(int) 64 => 'Criminal Revision No',
			(int) 65 => 'Criminal Procedure Code.28',
			(int) 66 => 'Court',
			(int) 67 => 'Court',
			(int) 68 => 'Court',
			(int) 69 => 'Court',
			(int) 70 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 71 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 72 => 'Trial Court',
			(int) 73 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
			(int) 74 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 75 => 'Court'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Krisna Narayan',
			(int) 1 => 'Anr',
			(int) 2 => 'Tiwari',
			(int) 3 => 'Anr',
			(int) 4 => 'Satna',
			(int) 5 => 'Arun Kumar',
			(int) 6 => 'Arun Kumar',
			(int) 7 => 'Sessions Trial Nos',
			(int) 8 => 'Satna',
			(int) 9 => 'Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 10 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 11 => 'Geeta Bai',
			(int) 12 => 'Kirtan Bai',
			(int) 13 => 'Sangita',
			(int) 14 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 15 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 16 => 'Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 17 => 'Constable Virendra Tiwari',
			(int) 18 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 19 => 'Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 20 => 'Geeta Bai',
			(int) 21 => 'Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 22 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 23 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 24 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
			(int) 25 => 'Geeta Bai',
			(int) 26 => 'Kirtan Bai',
			(int) 27 => 'Sangita',
			(int) 28 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
			(int) 29 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 30 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 31 => 'S.I. Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 32 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 33 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
			(int) 34 => 'Chandra Shekhar',
			(int) 35 => 'Head Constable',
			(int) 36 => 'Ramanuj Tiwari',
			(int) 37 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
			(int) 38 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 39 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
			(int) 40 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 41 => 'Satna',
			(int) 42 => 'proceedings.14',
			(int) 43 => 'Marg',
			(int) 44 => 'Satna',
			(int) 45 => 'Magistrate Nagod',
			(int) 46 => 'Shri Agrawal',
			(int) 47 => 'Shri Manikant Sharma',
			(int) 48 => 'Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 49 => 'Ram Bhusan',
			(int) 50 => 'Ram Bhushan',
			(int) 51 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
			(int) 52 => 'Ram Bhushan',
			(int) 53 => 'Abdul Vaheed Nasir v. State of',
			(int) 54 => 'Gulam Hussain v. Abdul Rashid'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '29',
			(int) 1 => '116/96',
			(int) 2 => '109',
			(int) 3 => '302',
			(int) 4 => '23-10-1989.3',
			(int) 5 => '603/99',
			(int) 6 => 'about 4',
			(int) 7 => '82/89',
			(int) 8 => '141/89',
			(int) 9 => '41/90',
			(int) 10 => '98/89',
			(int) 11 => '603/99.10',
			(int) 12 => '603/99.11',
			(int) 13 => 'one',
			(int) 14 => '2',
			(int) 15 => '2',
			(int) 16 => '200',
			(int) 17 => '202',
			(int) 18 => '228',
			(int) 19 => '494/99.26',
			(int) 20 => '2',
			(int) 21 => '1',
			(int) 22 => '8',
			(int) 23 => '8',
			(int) 24 => '507'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '603/99',
			(int) 1 => '27-8-1989',
			(int) 2 => '670/99',
			(int) 3 => '670/99',
			(int) 4 => '3789',
			(int) 5 => '2000',
			(int) 6 => '2000'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 1 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 2 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 3 => 'Rambhushan died.6',
			(int) 4 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 5 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 6 => 'Rambhushan'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 1 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 2 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 3 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 4 => 'Rambhushan died.7'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 1 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 2 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 3 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 4 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 5 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 6 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 7 => 'Kailash',
			(int) 8 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 9 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 10 => 'died.12',
			(int) 11 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 12 => 'Bihar'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Village Ragoli',
			(int) 1 => 'Village Ragoli',
			(int) 2 => 'Village Uchehra'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '508745',
			'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 197, 200, 202, 202(2), 227 and 228',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 670/1999',
			'appellant' => 'Rampyare and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rampyare and ors. Vs. Rampyari',
			'casenote' => ' Criminal - Discharge of Duty - Conviction - Section 197 of code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr PC) - Some dispute arose between deceased and X for land - Deceased assaulted X and he died consequently - Criminal registered against deceased and pending before Trial Court - Thereafter, respondents alongwith police personnel caught deceased and killed him - Complainant lodged complaint against police personnel and respondents - Trial Court acquitted police personnel and framed charges against respondents - Hence, present revision filed by complainant against acquittal of police official and by respondents for challenging their conviction - Held, as per established facts, respondent no 2 forced deceased to get down from jeep and directed other respondents to finish deceased - Considering facts on record it was clear that act on part of respondents can not be said to discharge of their official duties - Thus, they were rightly convicted - Further, act or offence of police personnel not covered under official duty and Section 197 Cr PC did not attracted - Police official had no authority to order open fire - Thus, they were rightly convicted - Hence, impugned order of Trial Court was set aside - Criminal revision of claimants allowed and criminal revision of respondents dismissed - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 147; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Liability of Insurer - Third party insurance  Held, The insured who is a party to the insurance is not a third party for the purpose of Chapter XI of the Act, particularly Section 147 thereof. Thus, any person other than the insurer and the insured who are parties to the insurance policy is a third party. The insurer, however, would not be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of Section 147 of the Act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. Hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under Section 147 of the Act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. An employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. But merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless Section 147 of the Act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. Section 147 (1)(b) of the Act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of Chapter XI of the Act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. Even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the Proviso to sub-section (1)of Section 147 of the Act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the Proviso to sub-section (1`) of Section 147 of the Act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Sarvanlal, 2004 (4) MPHT 404 (D.B) Overruled]. 
Sections 147 & 96 & M.P. M.V. Rules, 1994, Rule 97; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Control of Transport vehicles  M.P. Rules relate to provisions of control of transport vehicles and it cannot be adopted for interpreting Sections 147 and 145 of the M.V. Act to hold the insurer liable for death or bodily injury suffered by passenger. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Sarvanlal, 2004 (4) MPHT 404 (D.B) Overruled]. -  1. This order shall govern disposal of this revision as well as Criminal Revision No. 15. But where complainant is satisfied with examination of only certain witnesses before committal of case it is not incumbent on committing Magistrate to record evidence of remaining witnesses. 20. The committing Magistrate, after examining the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code found that the material disclosed commission of offence and he was satisfied that there were reasons to proceed against accused persons, therefore, the summoning order of the Magistrate can not be interfered with. 22. It is true that unless there is a strong suspicion against a person he should not be subjected to the agony of a protracted criminal trial by framing charges but where the Trial Judge has considered all the material available on record and found that prima facie the facts do constitute the offence against the accused, the High Court can not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in the case is reliable or not to justify the framing of the charges. Of course, where the material available in the case creates a very strong ground and suspicion about the complicity of the accused in the crime, the Court has to frame charge as the truth, veracity and effect of evidence can not be judged at initial stage of trial. 494/99. 26. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the object of the section is to guard against vexatious proceedings against public servants and to secure a well-considered opinion of superior authority before a prosecution is launched against them. Where the act of the police officers as complained of, can not even remotely be connected with discharge of their official duty, they could not have been discharged applying provisions of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. The acts complained of against the respondents were committed by the public servants in discharge of their official duties or purporting to be in the discharge of official duty. At this stage from the material on record, it can not be said that the act complained of was done in the discharge of official duty. 31. It is well settled that the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be raised at any time even at the time of conclusion of trial. It is a case where it may not be possible to decide the question effectively without giving opportunity to the defence to establish that what they did was in discharge of official duty.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Gulam Hussain v. Abdul Rashid;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Agrawal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Manikant Sharma and ; G.S. Ahluwalia, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This order shall govern disposal of this revision as well as Criminal Revision No. 603/99, Krisna Narayan and Anr. v. Kalka Prasad, and Criminal Revision No. 494/99, Kalka Prasad v. Ram Naresh Tiwari and Anr. All the aforesaid revisions under Section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code arc directed against the order dated 29-1-1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No, 116/96 whereby an application filed by the respondents of Criminal Revision No. 494/99 under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code was allowed and charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109 read with Section 302 and 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code were framed against applicants of Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts of the case which led to filing of these revisions are that a complaint under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code was filed by complainant Kalka Prasad, who is applicant in Criminal Revision No. 494/99, for the aforesaid offences against the accused persons who are the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99 and respondents in Criminal Revision No. 494/99, on the allegation of having committed murder of Rambhushan, on 23-10-1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was alleged that a long drawn litigation regarding property was pending between Kalka Prasad and the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99. On 27-8-1989 at about 4 P.M. a quarrel broke out between Rambhushan and Arun Kumar in which Arun Kumar died. A Crime No. 82/89 was registered at P.S. Uchchra. Regarding this incident, Sessions Trial Nos. 141/89 and 41/90 were pending before Sessions Court, Satna, for offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. In this case deceased Rambhushan could not be arrested and he was making efforts to get anticipatory bail. On the date of incident, Police Inspector Vinod Pandey, Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and other police personnel surrounded the house of complainant Kalka Prasad. Rambhushan, his sister Geeta Bai and grand daughters of complainant Kalka Prasad, namely, Kirtan Bai and Sangita were present in the house.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. When Rambhushan tried to escape, the police personnel and some of the villagers who arc accused in the complaint case, followed him and opened fire as a result of which a bullet hit the leg of deceased Rambhushan and he fell down. He was caught hold by police personnel and villagers, and was tied with a rope. Rambhushan also opened fire. Firearm injuries were caused to Inspector Vinod Pandey, Constable Virendra Tiwari and Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak. Inspector Vinod Pandey received serious injuries. Enraged by this incident, the police personnel assaulted Rambhushan. When his sister Geeta Bai tried to interfere, she was also abused. Inspector Vinod Pandey and Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak sat in the jeep. Injured accused Rambhushan was lodged in the jeep but on the directions of Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak, Rambhushan was thrown from the jeep.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was further alleged that the Dy. S.P. then directed the police personnel and villagers to kill Rambhushan and to bring him dead at the police station. When the jeep moved from the spot, Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari and other police personnel took Rambhushan towards Village Ragoli and beat him. When Geeta Bai, Kirtan Bai and Sangita tried to intervene at this stage also, they were abused. The deceased was then taken to the ground of Village Ragoli and was assaulted again. As a result of beating Rambhushan died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari and Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak who were the accused persons in complaint case and are respondents in Criminal Revision No. 494/99, filed an application before the Trial Court under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code stating that they had gone in search of absconding accused Rambhushan. When they reached in the forest near Village Uchehra, deceased Rambhushan fired at them which hit S.I. Vinod Pandey, Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Constable Virendra Prasad. Despite all this, Rambhushan was arrested. S.I. Vinod Pandey, Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Constable Virendra Prasad were shifted in a jeep for being admitted in the hospital. The deceased Rambhushan was handed over to Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari. When Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari with the help of villagers, namely, Chandra Shekhar and Kailash was bringing Rambhushan to police station, other villagers assembled on the spot and attacked Rambhushan and started beating him. Head Constable, Ramanuj Tiwari made an attempt to save Rambhushan, but in vain as a result of assault by the villagers, Rambhushan died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It was also stated in the application that Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari lodged a report at Police Station, Uchehra on the basis of which Crime No. 98/89 was registered. S.I. Vinod Pandey succumbed to the injuries caused by deceased Rambhushan. As the villagers who assaulted Rambhushan, could not be identified, a final report of the offence was submitted. A magisterial enquiry was also directed As per report of magisterial enquiry the death of Rambhushan was caused by the villagers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order, allowed the application under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code and discharged the applicants Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari holding that their act was covered and protected by virtue of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code as the act was done while discharging the official duty. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against other accused persons who are the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, complainant Kalka Prasad has filed Criminal Revision No. 494/99 against discharge of accused persons Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari. The other accused persons except Kailash against whom charges were framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, have filed Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I shall first proceed to decide Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners of these revisions submitted that where the aforesaid police officers were discharged, giving them benefit of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, the present petitioners could not have been held responsible for the offence as they had gone to help the police personnel who were assaulted by the absconding accused in which one S.I. Vinod Pandey sustained injuries and later on, died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention can not be accepted. Protection under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code is available to the public servants only. Admittedly, petitioners are not public servants and, therefore, they were not entitled to the protection under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. Merely because the petitioners had gone to help the police personnel, protection of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code can not be made available to them. The provisions of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code arc to be construed strictly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Learned Counsel next contended' that as the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, it was obligatory for the complainant to examine all the witnesses cited in the complaint and if the same was not done, complaint could not have been registered. Non-examination of witnesses vitiates further proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. A perusal of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code reveals that Magistrate is required to call upon the complainant to produce his witnesses and examine them on oath. The duty of Magistrate in complaints about offences triable by Sessions Judge becomes onerous. The legislative intent behind the said proviso must be carried to its logical end. A person facing trial of a serious offence should not be taken by surprise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. But where complainant is satisfied with examination of only certain witnesses before committal of case it is not incumbent on committing Magistrate to record evidence of remaining witnesses. It is evident from the language of the proviso that it does not require all the prosecution witnesses to be examined. Only witnesses of the choice of complainant can be examined. The words 'all his witnesses' under proviso to Section 202(2) do not refer literally to all prosecution witnesses in number rather to all complainant's witnesses to whom he considers material to prove his case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is not the case of the accused persons that the witnesses who were material for the purpose of finding out the truth or otherwise of the complaint were not examined. At this stage it can not be said that justice has not been done and the truth did not come to light. Proviso to sub-section (2) (supra) will not be infringed if the witnesses given up by the complainant are not examined. If the complainant closes evidence after examining some of witnesses, Magistrate can not compel him to examine all named witnesses. Where the Magistrate considers that the evidence of certain witnesses is necessary he can summon them as Court witnesses. It is not the case of the accused persons that the complainant disclosed his intention to produce some witnesses and the Court refused to examine them. Where all the witnesses produced by the complainant were examined, it is futile to urge that the provisions of Section 202 were not complied with.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and no reason has been assigned for the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. This contention also is sans substance. The complainant has given an explanation for delay in lodging the complaint. He has explained that Marg No. 3789 was registered regarding the death of his son. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded and he was assured by the District Magistrate, Satna that action will be taken to ensure that the guilty persons are punished and directions were given to Executive Magistrate Nagod, to hold an enquiry in the matter. The Magistrate, accordingly held an enquiry and submitted his report on which no action was taken. This compelled the complainant to file the complaint case. The explanation can not be said to be unsatisfactory. Even otherwise, the delay in filing the complaint can not be a ground for discharging the petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts emerging from the material collected by the prosecution during investigation do not constitute the offence for which the accused persons are alleged to have been charged, therefore, neither the complaint could have been registered, nor the charge could have been framed against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The committing Magistrate, after examining the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code found that the material disclosed commission of offence and he was satisfied that there were reasons to proceed against accused persons, therefore, the summoning order of the Magistrate can not be interfered with. Where the order issuing process is passed on legal evidence and it is not wholly perverse, no interference by this Court is called for in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction which is very limited. In this case no glaring feature is brought to my notice which would tantamount to miscarriage of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. At the time of framing the charge the only prima facie case is to be seen from the material submitted by the complainant. It is not necessary to enter into detail and discuss the evidence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the impugned order has given the adequate reasons for framing the charges.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. It is true that unless there is a strong suspicion against a person he should not be subjected to the agony of a protracted criminal trial by framing charges but where the Trial Judge has considered all the material available on record and found that prima facie the facts do constitute the offence against the accused, the High Court can not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in the case is reliable or not to justify the framing of the charges.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The purpose of Sections 227 and 228, Criminal Procedure Code is to ensure that accusation made against the accused are not frivolous. Of course, where the material available in the case creates a very strong ground and suspicion about the complicity of the accused in the crime, the Court has to frame charge as the truth, veracity and effect of evidence can not be judged at initial stage of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Thus, the order of framing charge against the petitioners of Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99 is perfectly justified and I do not find any illegality in the order impugned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. Now, I proceed to consider Criminal Revision No. 494/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the object of the section is to guard against vexatious proceedings against public servants and to secure a well-considered opinion of superior authority before a prosecution is launched against them. It is not the part of official duly to commit murder of a person. The offence of murder can not be said to be under the cover of official duly. Where the act of the police officers as complained of, can not even remotely be connected with discharge of their official duty, they could not have been discharged applying provisions of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. As against this, Shri Manikant Sharma and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, submitted that the police went in search of an accused who was absconding. Due to the fire opened by the absconding accused, the Sub- Inspector, Vinod Pandey was seriously injured, who ultimately died and other police personnel also received firearm injuries. Ram Bhusan was assaulted by the villagers and not by the police personnel. The acts complained of against the respondents were committed by the public servants in discharge of their official duties or purporting to be in the discharge of official duty. Therefore, the prohibition imposed by statute for taking cognizance applies and the learned Trial Judge rightly allowed the application under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In determining the question whether the alleged offence was committed in official capacity or not the Court must at the outset have regard to the allegations in the complaint case. In the complaint and the evidence recorded, averments have been made that respondent No. 2 forced Ram Bhushan to get down from the jeep and instructed respondent No. 1. Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari and other villagers to finish Ram Bhushan. Such an act on the part of respondents can not be said to be in discharge of their official duties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. It is true that Court has the liberty to look beyond the form in which the allegations have been made and Court is not required to confine itself to the allegations in the complaint. It can take into account all the materials on record at the time when the question is raised and called for consideration. At this stage from the material on record, it can not be said that the act complained of was done in the discharge of official duty. The Court is not expected or entitled to anticipate the defence. From the facts alleged, it can not be said at this stage that no offence was committed. It is not a part of official duty to commit offence. An officer is not expected to commit murder. Where prima facie it appears that the offence alleged is not under the cover of official duty, Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code is not attracted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on Abdul Vaheed Nasir v. State of Bihar, (2000) 8 SCC 500 and Gulam Hussain v. Abdul Rashid, (2000) 8 SCC 507. In both the cases, the directions for opening fire was given by SDM where the situation became out of control. It was held that the order of fire was in exercise of official duty. In the case in hand, the Dy. S.P. had no authority to order the opening of fire. At the present stage of the case, from the material on record it can not be said that sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code was necessary. However, if at the subsequent stage of the case, it is found that the case as put forward by the prosecution fails or the defence establishes that the act purported to be done is in the course of discharge of official duty, the proceedings will have to be dropped.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. It is well settled that the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be raised at any time even at the time of conclusion of trial. It is a case where it may not be possible to decide the question effectively without giving opportunity to the defence to establish that what they did was in discharge of official duty. Therefore, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to examine during the course of trial or even at the time of conclusion of trial as to whether the claim of the accused, that the act they did was in the course of the performance of their official duty was reasonable one and it was neither pretended nor fanciful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. For the foregoing reasons Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99 are dismissed and the impugned order, framing charges against the petitioners of these revisions is maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">33. So far as the Criminal Procedure No. 494/99 is concerned, the same is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. However, it may be observed that during the course of trial, the Court below shall be at liberty to consider this question afresh and deal with the same at the subsequent stage or in the main judgment in the light of the provisions of the law without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(1)MPHT89; 2004(4)MPLJ54',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Rampyari',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '508745'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rampyare and ors. Vs. Rampyari Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 397/401',
		(int) 1 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 34',
		(int) 5 => 'Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 200',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 8 => 'Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 13 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 14 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 15 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 16 => 'Section 202',
		(int) 17 => 'Section 202(2',
		(int) 18 => 'Section 202',
		(int) 19 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 20 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 21 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 22 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 23 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 24 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 25 => 'the Criminal Procedure No'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Jain',
		(int) 1 => 'Criminal Revision No',
		(int) 2 => 'Kalka Prasad',
		(int) 3 => 'Criminal Revision No',
		(int) 4 => 'Kalka Prasad',
		(int) 5 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 6 => 'Criminal Revision No',
		(int) 7 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
		(int) 8 => 'Kalka Prasad',
		(int) 9 => 'Criminal Revision',
		(int) 10 => 'Criminal Revision',
		(int) 11 => 'Kalka Prasad',
		(int) 12 => 'P.S. Uchchra',
		(int) 13 => 'Sessions Court',
		(int) 14 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 15 => 'Kalka Prasad',
		(int) 16 => 'Kalka Prasad',
		(int) 17 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 18 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 19 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 20 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 21 => 'Criminal Revision',
		(int) 22 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 23 => 'S.I. Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 24 => 'Constable Virendra Prasad',
		(int) 25 => 'Constable Virendra Prasad',
		(int) 26 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 27 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 28 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 29 => 'Police Station, Uchehra',
		(int) 30 => 'S.I. Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 31 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 32 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 33 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 34 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 35 => 'Kalka Prasad',
		(int) 36 => 'Criminal Revision No',
		(int) 37 => 'Kailash',
		(int) 38 => 'the Additional Sessions',
		(int) 39 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
		(int) 40 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
		(int) 41 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 42 => 'S.I.',
		(int) 43 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 44 => 'the Court of Session',
		(int) 45 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 46 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 47 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 48 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 49 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 50 => 'Court',
		(int) 51 => 'Court',
		(int) 52 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 53 => 'the District Magistrate',
		(int) 54 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 55 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 56 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 57 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 58 => 'Court',
		(int) 59 => 'Learned Additional Sessions',
		(int) 60 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 61 => 'Sections 227',
		(int) 62 => 'Court',
		(int) 63 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
		(int) 64 => 'Criminal Revision No',
		(int) 65 => 'Criminal Procedure Code.28',
		(int) 66 => 'Court',
		(int) 67 => 'Court',
		(int) 68 => 'Court',
		(int) 69 => 'Court',
		(int) 70 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 71 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 72 => 'Trial Court',
		(int) 73 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
		(int) 74 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 75 => 'Court'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Krisna Narayan',
		(int) 1 => 'Anr',
		(int) 2 => 'Tiwari',
		(int) 3 => 'Anr',
		(int) 4 => 'Satna',
		(int) 5 => 'Arun Kumar',
		(int) 6 => 'Arun Kumar',
		(int) 7 => 'Sessions Trial Nos',
		(int) 8 => 'Satna',
		(int) 9 => 'Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 10 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 11 => 'Geeta Bai',
		(int) 12 => 'Kirtan Bai',
		(int) 13 => 'Sangita',
		(int) 14 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 15 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 16 => 'Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 17 => 'Constable Virendra Tiwari',
		(int) 18 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 19 => 'Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 20 => 'Geeta Bai',
		(int) 21 => 'Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 22 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 23 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 24 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
		(int) 25 => 'Geeta Bai',
		(int) 26 => 'Kirtan Bai',
		(int) 27 => 'Sangita',
		(int) 28 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
		(int) 29 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 30 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 31 => 'S.I. Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 32 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 33 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
		(int) 34 => 'Chandra Shekhar',
		(int) 35 => 'Head Constable',
		(int) 36 => 'Ramanuj Tiwari',
		(int) 37 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
		(int) 38 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 39 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
		(int) 40 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 41 => 'Satna',
		(int) 42 => 'proceedings.14',
		(int) 43 => 'Marg',
		(int) 44 => 'Satna',
		(int) 45 => 'Magistrate Nagod',
		(int) 46 => 'Shri Agrawal',
		(int) 47 => 'Shri Manikant Sharma',
		(int) 48 => 'Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 49 => 'Ram Bhusan',
		(int) 50 => 'Ram Bhushan',
		(int) 51 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
		(int) 52 => 'Ram Bhushan',
		(int) 53 => 'Abdul Vaheed Nasir v. State of',
		(int) 54 => 'Gulam Hussain v. Abdul Rashid'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '29',
		(int) 1 => '116/96',
		(int) 2 => '109',
		(int) 3 => '302',
		(int) 4 => '23-10-1989.3',
		(int) 5 => '603/99',
		(int) 6 => 'about 4',
		(int) 7 => '82/89',
		(int) 8 => '141/89',
		(int) 9 => '41/90',
		(int) 10 => '98/89',
		(int) 11 => '603/99.10',
		(int) 12 => '603/99.11',
		(int) 13 => 'one',
		(int) 14 => '2',
		(int) 15 => '2',
		(int) 16 => '200',
		(int) 17 => '202',
		(int) 18 => '228',
		(int) 19 => '494/99.26',
		(int) 20 => '2',
		(int) 21 => '1',
		(int) 22 => '8',
		(int) 23 => '8',
		(int) 24 => '507'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '603/99',
		(int) 1 => '27-8-1989',
		(int) 2 => '670/99',
		(int) 3 => '670/99',
		(int) 4 => '3789',
		(int) 5 => '2000',
		(int) 6 => '2000'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 1 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 2 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 3 => 'Rambhushan died.6',
		(int) 4 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 5 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 6 => 'Rambhushan'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 1 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 2 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 3 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 4 => 'Rambhushan died.7'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 1 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 2 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 3 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 4 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 5 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 6 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 7 => 'Kailash',
		(int) 8 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 9 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 10 => 'died.12',
		(int) 11 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 12 => 'Bihar'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Village Ragoli',
		(int) 1 => 'Village Ragoli',
		(int) 2 => 'Village Uchehra'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '508745',
		'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 197, 200, 202, 202(2), 227 and 228',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 670/1999',
		'appellant' => 'Rampyare and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rampyare and ors. Vs. Rampyari',
		'casenote' => ' Criminal - Discharge of Duty - Conviction - Section 197 of code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr PC) - Some dispute arose between deceased and X for land - Deceased assaulted X and he died consequently - Criminal registered against deceased and pending before Trial Court - Thereafter, respondents alongwith police personnel caught deceased and killed him - Complainant lodged complaint against police personnel and respondents - Trial Court acquitted police personnel and framed charges against respondents - Hence, present revision filed by complainant against acquittal of police official and by respondents for challenging their conviction - Held, as per established facts, respondent no 2 forced deceased to get down from jeep and directed other respondents to finish deceased - Considering facts on record it was clear that act on part of respondents can not be said to discharge of their official duties - Thus, they were rightly convicted - Further, act or offence of police personnel not covered under official duty and Section 197 Cr PC did not attracted - Police official had no authority to order open fire - Thus, they were rightly convicted - Hence, impugned order of Trial Court was set aside - Criminal revision of claimants allowed and criminal revision of respondents dismissed - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 147; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Liability of Insurer - Third party insurance  Held, The insured who is a party to the insurance is not a third party for the purpose of Chapter XI of the Act, particularly Section 147 thereof. Thus, any person other than the insurer and the insured who are parties to the insurance policy is a third party. The insurer, however, would not be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of Section 147 of the Act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. Hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under Section 147 of the Act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. An employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. But merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless Section 147 of the Act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. Section 147 (1)(b) of the Act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of Chapter XI of the Act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. Even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the Proviso to sub-section (1)of Section 147 of the Act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the Proviso to sub-section (1`) of Section 147 of the Act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Sarvanlal, 2004 (4) MPHT 404 (D.B) Overruled]. 
Sections 147 & 96 & M.P. M.V. Rules, 1994, Rule 97; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Control of Transport vehicles  M.P. Rules relate to provisions of control of transport vehicles and it cannot be adopted for interpreting Sections 147 and 145 of the M.V. Act to hold the insurer liable for death or bodily injury suffered by passenger. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Sarvanlal, 2004 (4) MPHT 404 (D.B) Overruled]. -  1. This order shall govern disposal of this revision as well as Criminal Revision No. 15. But where complainant is satisfied with examination of only certain witnesses before committal of case it is not incumbent on committing Magistrate to record evidence of remaining witnesses. 20. The committing Magistrate, after examining the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code found that the material disclosed commission of offence and he was satisfied that there were reasons to proceed against accused persons, therefore, the summoning order of the Magistrate can not be interfered with. 22. It is true that unless there is a strong suspicion against a person he should not be subjected to the agony of a protracted criminal trial by framing charges but where the Trial Judge has considered all the material available on record and found that prima facie the facts do constitute the offence against the accused, the High Court can not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in the case is reliable or not to justify the framing of the charges. Of course, where the material available in the case creates a very strong ground and suspicion about the complicity of the accused in the crime, the Court has to frame charge as the truth, veracity and effect of evidence can not be judged at initial stage of trial. 494/99. 26. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the object of the section is to guard against vexatious proceedings against public servants and to secure a well-considered opinion of superior authority before a prosecution is launched against them. Where the act of the police officers as complained of, can not even remotely be connected with discharge of their official duty, they could not have been discharged applying provisions of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. The acts complained of against the respondents were committed by the public servants in discharge of their official duties or purporting to be in the discharge of official duty. At this stage from the material on record, it can not be said that the act complained of was done in the discharge of official duty. 31. It is well settled that the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be raised at any time even at the time of conclusion of trial. It is a case where it may not be possible to decide the question effectively without giving opportunity to the defence to establish that what they did was in discharge of official duty.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Gulam Hussain v. Abdul Rashid;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Agrawal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Manikant Sharma and ; G.S. Ahluwalia, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This order shall govern disposal of this revision as well as Criminal Revision No. 603/99, Krisna Narayan and Anr. v. Kalka Prasad, and Criminal Revision No. 494/99, Kalka Prasad v. Ram Naresh Tiwari and Anr. All the aforesaid revisions under Section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code arc directed against the order dated 29-1-1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No, 116/96 whereby an application filed by the respondents of Criminal Revision No. 494/99 under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code was allowed and charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109 read with Section 302 and 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code were framed against applicants of Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts of the case which led to filing of these revisions are that a complaint under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code was filed by complainant Kalka Prasad, who is applicant in Criminal Revision No. 494/99, for the aforesaid offences against the accused persons who are the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99 and respondents in Criminal Revision No. 494/99, on the allegation of having committed murder of Rambhushan, on 23-10-1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was alleged that a long drawn litigation regarding property was pending between Kalka Prasad and the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99. On 27-8-1989 at about 4 P.M. a quarrel broke out between Rambhushan and Arun Kumar in which Arun Kumar died. A Crime No. 82/89 was registered at P.S. Uchchra. Regarding this incident, Sessions Trial Nos. 141/89 and 41/90 were pending before Sessions Court, Satna, for offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. In this case deceased Rambhushan could not be arrested and he was making efforts to get anticipatory bail. On the date of incident, Police Inspector Vinod Pandey, Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and other police personnel surrounded the house of complainant Kalka Prasad. Rambhushan, his sister Geeta Bai and grand daughters of complainant Kalka Prasad, namely, Kirtan Bai and Sangita were present in the house.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. When Rambhushan tried to escape, the police personnel and some of the villagers who arc accused in the complaint case, followed him and opened fire as a result of which a bullet hit the leg of deceased Rambhushan and he fell down. He was caught hold by police personnel and villagers, and was tied with a rope. Rambhushan also opened fire. Firearm injuries were caused to Inspector Vinod Pandey, Constable Virendra Tiwari and Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak. Inspector Vinod Pandey received serious injuries. Enraged by this incident, the police personnel assaulted Rambhushan. When his sister Geeta Bai tried to interfere, she was also abused. Inspector Vinod Pandey and Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak sat in the jeep. Injured accused Rambhushan was lodged in the jeep but on the directions of Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak, Rambhushan was thrown from the jeep.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was further alleged that the Dy. S.P. then directed the police personnel and villagers to kill Rambhushan and to bring him dead at the police station. When the jeep moved from the spot, Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari and other police personnel took Rambhushan towards Village Ragoli and beat him. When Geeta Bai, Kirtan Bai and Sangita tried to intervene at this stage also, they were abused. The deceased was then taken to the ground of Village Ragoli and was assaulted again. As a result of beating Rambhushan died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari and Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak who were the accused persons in complaint case and are respondents in Criminal Revision No. 494/99, filed an application before the Trial Court under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code stating that they had gone in search of absconding accused Rambhushan. When they reached in the forest near Village Uchehra, deceased Rambhushan fired at them which hit S.I. Vinod Pandey, Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Constable Virendra Prasad. Despite all this, Rambhushan was arrested. S.I. Vinod Pandey, Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Constable Virendra Prasad were shifted in a jeep for being admitted in the hospital. The deceased Rambhushan was handed over to Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari. When Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari with the help of villagers, namely, Chandra Shekhar and Kailash was bringing Rambhushan to police station, other villagers assembled on the spot and attacked Rambhushan and started beating him. Head Constable, Ramanuj Tiwari made an attempt to save Rambhushan, but in vain as a result of assault by the villagers, Rambhushan died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It was also stated in the application that Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari lodged a report at Police Station, Uchehra on the basis of which Crime No. 98/89 was registered. S.I. Vinod Pandey succumbed to the injuries caused by deceased Rambhushan. As the villagers who assaulted Rambhushan, could not be identified, a final report of the offence was submitted. A magisterial enquiry was also directed As per report of magisterial enquiry the death of Rambhushan was caused by the villagers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order, allowed the application under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code and discharged the applicants Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari holding that their act was covered and protected by virtue of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code as the act was done while discharging the official duty. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against other accused persons who are the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, complainant Kalka Prasad has filed Criminal Revision No. 494/99 against discharge of accused persons Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari. The other accused persons except Kailash against whom charges were framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, have filed Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I shall first proceed to decide Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners of these revisions submitted that where the aforesaid police officers were discharged, giving them benefit of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, the present petitioners could not have been held responsible for the offence as they had gone to help the police personnel who were assaulted by the absconding accused in which one S.I. Vinod Pandey sustained injuries and later on, died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention can not be accepted. Protection under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code is available to the public servants only. Admittedly, petitioners are not public servants and, therefore, they were not entitled to the protection under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. Merely because the petitioners had gone to help the police personnel, protection of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code can not be made available to them. The provisions of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code arc to be construed strictly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Learned Counsel next contended' that as the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, it was obligatory for the complainant to examine all the witnesses cited in the complaint and if the same was not done, complaint could not have been registered. Non-examination of witnesses vitiates further proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. A perusal of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code reveals that Magistrate is required to call upon the complainant to produce his witnesses and examine them on oath. The duty of Magistrate in complaints about offences triable by Sessions Judge becomes onerous. The legislative intent behind the said proviso must be carried to its logical end. A person facing trial of a serious offence should not be taken by surprise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. But where complainant is satisfied with examination of only certain witnesses before committal of case it is not incumbent on committing Magistrate to record evidence of remaining witnesses. It is evident from the language of the proviso that it does not require all the prosecution witnesses to be examined. Only witnesses of the choice of complainant can be examined. The words 'all his witnesses' under proviso to Section 202(2) do not refer literally to all prosecution witnesses in number rather to all complainant's witnesses to whom he considers material to prove his case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is not the case of the accused persons that the witnesses who were material for the purpose of finding out the truth or otherwise of the complaint were not examined. At this stage it can not be said that justice has not been done and the truth did not come to light. Proviso to sub-section (2) (supra) will not be infringed if the witnesses given up by the complainant are not examined. If the complainant closes evidence after examining some of witnesses, Magistrate can not compel him to examine all named witnesses. Where the Magistrate considers that the evidence of certain witnesses is necessary he can summon them as Court witnesses. It is not the case of the accused persons that the complainant disclosed his intention to produce some witnesses and the Court refused to examine them. Where all the witnesses produced by the complainant were examined, it is futile to urge that the provisions of Section 202 were not complied with.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and no reason has been assigned for the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. This contention also is sans substance. The complainant has given an explanation for delay in lodging the complaint. He has explained that Marg No. 3789 was registered regarding the death of his son. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded and he was assured by the District Magistrate, Satna that action will be taken to ensure that the guilty persons are punished and directions were given to Executive Magistrate Nagod, to hold an enquiry in the matter. The Magistrate, accordingly held an enquiry and submitted his report on which no action was taken. This compelled the complainant to file the complaint case. The explanation can not be said to be unsatisfactory. Even otherwise, the delay in filing the complaint can not be a ground for discharging the petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts emerging from the material collected by the prosecution during investigation do not constitute the offence for which the accused persons are alleged to have been charged, therefore, neither the complaint could have been registered, nor the charge could have been framed against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The committing Magistrate, after examining the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code found that the material disclosed commission of offence and he was satisfied that there were reasons to proceed against accused persons, therefore, the summoning order of the Magistrate can not be interfered with. Where the order issuing process is passed on legal evidence and it is not wholly perverse, no interference by this Court is called for in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction which is very limited. In this case no glaring feature is brought to my notice which would tantamount to miscarriage of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. At the time of framing the charge the only prima facie case is to be seen from the material submitted by the complainant. It is not necessary to enter into detail and discuss the evidence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the impugned order has given the adequate reasons for framing the charges.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. It is true that unless there is a strong suspicion against a person he should not be subjected to the agony of a protracted criminal trial by framing charges but where the Trial Judge has considered all the material available on record and found that prima facie the facts do constitute the offence against the accused, the High Court can not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in the case is reliable or not to justify the framing of the charges.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The purpose of Sections 227 and 228, Criminal Procedure Code is to ensure that accusation made against the accused are not frivolous. Of course, where the material available in the case creates a very strong ground and suspicion about the complicity of the accused in the crime, the Court has to frame charge as the truth, veracity and effect of evidence can not be judged at initial stage of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Thus, the order of framing charge against the petitioners of Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99 is perfectly justified and I do not find any illegality in the order impugned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. Now, I proceed to consider Criminal Revision No. 494/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the object of the section is to guard against vexatious proceedings against public servants and to secure a well-considered opinion of superior authority before a prosecution is launched against them. It is not the part of official duly to commit murder of a person. The offence of murder can not be said to be under the cover of official duly. Where the act of the police officers as complained of, can not even remotely be connected with discharge of their official duty, they could not have been discharged applying provisions of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. As against this, Shri Manikant Sharma and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, submitted that the police went in search of an accused who was absconding. Due to the fire opened by the absconding accused, the Sub- Inspector, Vinod Pandey was seriously injured, who ultimately died and other police personnel also received firearm injuries. Ram Bhusan was assaulted by the villagers and not by the police personnel. The acts complained of against the respondents were committed by the public servants in discharge of their official duties or purporting to be in the discharge of official duty. Therefore, the prohibition imposed by statute for taking cognizance applies and the learned Trial Judge rightly allowed the application under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In determining the question whether the alleged offence was committed in official capacity or not the Court must at the outset have regard to the allegations in the complaint case. In the complaint and the evidence recorded, averments have been made that respondent No. 2 forced Ram Bhushan to get down from the jeep and instructed respondent No. 1. Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari and other villagers to finish Ram Bhushan. Such an act on the part of respondents can not be said to be in discharge of their official duties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. It is true that Court has the liberty to look beyond the form in which the allegations have been made and Court is not required to confine itself to the allegations in the complaint. It can take into account all the materials on record at the time when the question is raised and called for consideration. At this stage from the material on record, it can not be said that the act complained of was done in the discharge of official duty. The Court is not expected or entitled to anticipate the defence. From the facts alleged, it can not be said at this stage that no offence was committed. It is not a part of official duty to commit offence. An officer is not expected to commit murder. Where prima facie it appears that the offence alleged is not under the cover of official duty, Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code is not attracted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on Abdul Vaheed Nasir v. State of Bihar, (2000) 8 SCC 500 and Gulam Hussain v. Abdul Rashid, (2000) 8 SCC 507. In both the cases, the directions for opening fire was given by SDM where the situation became out of control. It was held that the order of fire was in exercise of official duty. In the case in hand, the Dy. S.P. had no authority to order the opening of fire. At the present stage of the case, from the material on record it can not be said that sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code was necessary. However, if at the subsequent stage of the case, it is found that the case as put forward by the prosecution fails or the defence establishes that the act purported to be done is in the course of discharge of official duty, the proceedings will have to be dropped.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. It is well settled that the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be raised at any time even at the time of conclusion of trial. It is a case where it may not be possible to decide the question effectively without giving opportunity to the defence to establish that what they did was in discharge of official duty. Therefore, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to examine during the course of trial or even at the time of conclusion of trial as to whether the claim of the accused, that the act they did was in the course of the performance of their official duty was reasonable one and it was neither pretended nor fanciful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. For the foregoing reasons Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99 are dismissed and the impugned order, framing charges against the petitioners of these revisions is maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">33. So far as the Criminal Procedure No. 494/99 is concerned, the same is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. However, it may be observed that during the course of trial, the Court below shall be at liberty to consider this question afresh and deal with the same at the subsequent stage or in the main judgment in the light of the provisions of the law without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(1)MPHT89; 2004(4)MPLJ54',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Rampyari',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '508745'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rampyare and ors. Vs. Rampyari Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 397/401',
			(int) 1 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 34',
			(int) 5 => 'Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 200',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 8 => 'Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 13 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 14 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 15 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 16 => 'Section 202',
			(int) 17 => 'Section 202(2',
			(int) 18 => 'Section 202',
			(int) 19 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 20 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 21 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 22 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 23 => 'Section 197',
			(int) 24 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 25 => 'the Criminal Procedure No'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Jain',
			(int) 1 => 'Criminal Revision No',
			(int) 2 => 'Kalka Prasad',
			(int) 3 => 'Criminal Revision No',
			(int) 4 => 'Kalka Prasad',
			(int) 5 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 6 => 'Criminal Revision No',
			(int) 7 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
			(int) 8 => 'Kalka Prasad',
			(int) 9 => 'Criminal Revision',
			(int) 10 => 'Criminal Revision',
			(int) 11 => 'Kalka Prasad',
			(int) 12 => 'P.S. Uchchra',
			(int) 13 => 'Sessions Court',
			(int) 14 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 15 => 'Kalka Prasad',
			(int) 16 => 'Kalka Prasad',
			(int) 17 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 18 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 19 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 20 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 21 => 'Criminal Revision',
			(int) 22 => 'the Trial Court',
			(int) 23 => 'S.I. Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 24 => 'Constable Virendra Prasad',
			(int) 25 => 'Constable Virendra Prasad',
			(int) 26 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 27 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 28 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 29 => 'Police Station, Uchehra',
			(int) 30 => 'S.I. Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 31 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 32 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 33 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 34 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 35 => 'Kalka Prasad',
			(int) 36 => 'Criminal Revision No',
			(int) 37 => 'Kailash',
			(int) 38 => 'the Additional Sessions',
			(int) 39 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
			(int) 40 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
			(int) 41 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 42 => 'S.I.',
			(int) 43 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 44 => 'the Court of Session',
			(int) 45 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 46 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 47 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 48 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 49 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 50 => 'Court',
			(int) 51 => 'Court',
			(int) 52 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 53 => 'the District Magistrate',
			(int) 54 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 55 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 56 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 57 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 58 => 'Court',
			(int) 59 => 'Learned Additional Sessions',
			(int) 60 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 61 => 'Sections 227',
			(int) 62 => 'Court',
			(int) 63 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
			(int) 64 => 'Criminal Revision No',
			(int) 65 => 'Criminal Procedure Code.28',
			(int) 66 => 'Court',
			(int) 67 => 'Court',
			(int) 68 => 'Court',
			(int) 69 => 'Court',
			(int) 70 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 71 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 72 => 'Trial Court',
			(int) 73 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
			(int) 74 => 'Additional Sessions',
			(int) 75 => 'Court'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Krisna Narayan',
			(int) 1 => 'Anr',
			(int) 2 => 'Tiwari',
			(int) 3 => 'Anr',
			(int) 4 => 'Satna',
			(int) 5 => 'Arun Kumar',
			(int) 6 => 'Arun Kumar',
			(int) 7 => 'Sessions Trial Nos',
			(int) 8 => 'Satna',
			(int) 9 => 'Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 10 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 11 => 'Geeta Bai',
			(int) 12 => 'Kirtan Bai',
			(int) 13 => 'Sangita',
			(int) 14 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 15 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 16 => 'Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 17 => 'Constable Virendra Tiwari',
			(int) 18 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 19 => 'Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 20 => 'Geeta Bai',
			(int) 21 => 'Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 22 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 23 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 24 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
			(int) 25 => 'Geeta Bai',
			(int) 26 => 'Kirtan Bai',
			(int) 27 => 'Sangita',
			(int) 28 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
			(int) 29 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 30 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 31 => 'S.I. Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 32 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 33 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
			(int) 34 => 'Chandra Shekhar',
			(int) 35 => 'Head Constable',
			(int) 36 => 'Ramanuj Tiwari',
			(int) 37 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
			(int) 38 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 39 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
			(int) 40 => 'Chandra Pathak',
			(int) 41 => 'Satna',
			(int) 42 => 'proceedings.14',
			(int) 43 => 'Marg',
			(int) 44 => 'Satna',
			(int) 45 => 'Magistrate Nagod',
			(int) 46 => 'Shri Agrawal',
			(int) 47 => 'Shri Manikant Sharma',
			(int) 48 => 'Vinod Pandey',
			(int) 49 => 'Ram Bhusan',
			(int) 50 => 'Ram Bhushan',
			(int) 51 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
			(int) 52 => 'Ram Bhushan',
			(int) 53 => 'Abdul Vaheed Nasir v. State of',
			(int) 54 => 'Gulam Hussain v. Abdul Rashid'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '29',
			(int) 1 => '116/96',
			(int) 2 => '109',
			(int) 3 => '302',
			(int) 4 => '23-10-1989.3',
			(int) 5 => '603/99',
			(int) 6 => 'about 4',
			(int) 7 => '82/89',
			(int) 8 => '141/89',
			(int) 9 => '41/90',
			(int) 10 => '98/89',
			(int) 11 => '603/99.10',
			(int) 12 => '603/99.11',
			(int) 13 => 'one',
			(int) 14 => '2',
			(int) 15 => '2',
			(int) 16 => '200',
			(int) 17 => '202',
			(int) 18 => '228',
			(int) 19 => '494/99.26',
			(int) 20 => '2',
			(int) 21 => '1',
			(int) 22 => '8',
			(int) 23 => '8',
			(int) 24 => '507'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '603/99',
			(int) 1 => '27-8-1989',
			(int) 2 => '670/99',
			(int) 3 => '670/99',
			(int) 4 => '3789',
			(int) 5 => '2000',
			(int) 6 => '2000'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 1 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 2 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 3 => 'Rambhushan died.6',
			(int) 4 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 5 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 6 => 'Rambhushan'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 1 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 2 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 3 => 'Rambhushan',
			(int) 4 => 'Rambhushan died.7'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 1 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 2 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 3 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 4 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 5 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 6 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 7 => 'Kailash',
			(int) 8 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 9 => 'S.P.',
			(int) 10 => 'died.12',
			(int) 11 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 12 => 'Bihar'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Village Ragoli',
			(int) 1 => 'Village Ragoli',
			(int) 2 => 'Village Uchehra'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '508745',
			'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 197, 200, 202, 202(2), 227 and 228',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 670/1999',
			'appellant' => 'Rampyare and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rampyare and ors. Vs. Rampyari',
			'casenote' => ' Criminal - Discharge of Duty - Conviction - Section 197 of code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr PC) - Some dispute arose between deceased and X for land - Deceased assaulted X and he died consequently - Criminal registered against deceased and pending before Trial Court - Thereafter, respondents alongwith police personnel caught deceased and killed him - Complainant lodged complaint against police personnel and respondents - Trial Court acquitted police personnel and framed charges against respondents - Hence, present revision filed by complainant against acquittal of police official and by respondents for challenging their conviction - Held, as per established facts, respondent no 2 forced deceased to get down from jeep and directed other respondents to finish deceased - Considering facts on record it was clear that act on part of respondents can not be said to discharge of their official duties - Thus, they were rightly convicted - Further, act or offence of police personnel not covered under official duty and Section 197 Cr PC did not attracted - Police official had no authority to order open fire - Thus, they were rightly convicted - Hence, impugned order of Trial Court was set aside - Criminal revision of claimants allowed and criminal revision of respondents dismissed - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 147; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Liability of Insurer - Third party insurance  Held, The insured who is a party to the insurance is not a third party for the purpose of Chapter XI of the Act, particularly Section 147 thereof. Thus, any person other than the insurer and the insured who are parties to the insurance policy is a third party. The insurer, however, would not be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of Section 147 of the Act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. Hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under Section 147 of the Act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. An employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. But merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless Section 147 of the Act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. Section 147 (1)(b) of the Act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of Chapter XI of the Act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. Even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the Proviso to sub-section (1)of Section 147 of the Act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the Proviso to sub-section (1`) of Section 147 of the Act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Sarvanlal, 2004 (4) MPHT 404 (D.B) Overruled]. 
Sections 147 & 96 & M.P. M.V. Rules, 1994, Rule 97; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Control of Transport vehicles  M.P. Rules relate to provisions of control of transport vehicles and it cannot be adopted for interpreting Sections 147 and 145 of the M.V. Act to hold the insurer liable for death or bodily injury suffered by passenger. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Sarvanlal, 2004 (4) MPHT 404 (D.B) Overruled]. -  1. This order shall govern disposal of this revision as well as Criminal Revision No. 15. But where complainant is satisfied with examination of only certain witnesses before committal of case it is not incumbent on committing Magistrate to record evidence of remaining witnesses. 20. The committing Magistrate, after examining the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code found that the material disclosed commission of offence and he was satisfied that there were reasons to proceed against accused persons, therefore, the summoning order of the Magistrate can not be interfered with. 22. It is true that unless there is a strong suspicion against a person he should not be subjected to the agony of a protracted criminal trial by framing charges but where the Trial Judge has considered all the material available on record and found that prima facie the facts do constitute the offence against the accused, the High Court can not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in the case is reliable or not to justify the framing of the charges. Of course, where the material available in the case creates a very strong ground and suspicion about the complicity of the accused in the crime, the Court has to frame charge as the truth, veracity and effect of evidence can not be judged at initial stage of trial. 494/99. 26. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the object of the section is to guard against vexatious proceedings against public servants and to secure a well-considered opinion of superior authority before a prosecution is launched against them. Where the act of the police officers as complained of, can not even remotely be connected with discharge of their official duty, they could not have been discharged applying provisions of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. The acts complained of against the respondents were committed by the public servants in discharge of their official duties or purporting to be in the discharge of official duty. At this stage from the material on record, it can not be said that the act complained of was done in the discharge of official duty. 31. It is well settled that the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be raised at any time even at the time of conclusion of trial. It is a case where it may not be possible to decide the question effectively without giving opportunity to the defence to establish that what they did was in discharge of official duty.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => ' and Gulam Hussain v. Abdul Rashid;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Agrawal, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Manikant Sharma and ; G.S. Ahluwalia, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This order shall govern disposal of this revision as well as Criminal Revision No. 603/99, Krisna Narayan and Anr. v. Kalka Prasad, and Criminal Revision No. 494/99, Kalka Prasad v. Ram Naresh Tiwari and Anr. All the aforesaid revisions under Section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code arc directed against the order dated 29-1-1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No, 116/96 whereby an application filed by the respondents of Criminal Revision No. 494/99 under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code was allowed and charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109 read with Section 302 and 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code were framed against applicants of Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts of the case which led to filing of these revisions are that a complaint under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code was filed by complainant Kalka Prasad, who is applicant in Criminal Revision No. 494/99, for the aforesaid offences against the accused persons who are the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99 and respondents in Criminal Revision No. 494/99, on the allegation of having committed murder of Rambhushan, on 23-10-1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was alleged that a long drawn litigation regarding property was pending between Kalka Prasad and the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99. On 27-8-1989 at about 4 P.M. a quarrel broke out between Rambhushan and Arun Kumar in which Arun Kumar died. A Crime No. 82/89 was registered at P.S. Uchchra. Regarding this incident, Sessions Trial Nos. 141/89 and 41/90 were pending before Sessions Court, Satna, for offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. In this case deceased Rambhushan could not be arrested and he was making efforts to get anticipatory bail. On the date of incident, Police Inspector Vinod Pandey, Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and other police personnel surrounded the house of complainant Kalka Prasad. Rambhushan, his sister Geeta Bai and grand daughters of complainant Kalka Prasad, namely, Kirtan Bai and Sangita were present in the house.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. When Rambhushan tried to escape, the police personnel and some of the villagers who arc accused in the complaint case, followed him and opened fire as a result of which a bullet hit the leg of deceased Rambhushan and he fell down. He was caught hold by police personnel and villagers, and was tied with a rope. Rambhushan also opened fire. Firearm injuries were caused to Inspector Vinod Pandey, Constable Virendra Tiwari and Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak. Inspector Vinod Pandey received serious injuries. Enraged by this incident, the police personnel assaulted Rambhushan. When his sister Geeta Bai tried to interfere, she was also abused. Inspector Vinod Pandey and Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak sat in the jeep. Injured accused Rambhushan was lodged in the jeep but on the directions of Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak, Rambhushan was thrown from the jeep.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was further alleged that the Dy. S.P. then directed the police personnel and villagers to kill Rambhushan and to bring him dead at the police station. When the jeep moved from the spot, Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari and other police personnel took Rambhushan towards Village Ragoli and beat him. When Geeta Bai, Kirtan Bai and Sangita tried to intervene at this stage also, they were abused. The deceased was then taken to the ground of Village Ragoli and was assaulted again. As a result of beating Rambhushan died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari and Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak who were the accused persons in complaint case and are respondents in Criminal Revision No. 494/99, filed an application before the Trial Court under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code stating that they had gone in search of absconding accused Rambhushan. When they reached in the forest near Village Uchehra, deceased Rambhushan fired at them which hit S.I. Vinod Pandey, Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Constable Virendra Prasad. Despite all this, Rambhushan was arrested. S.I. Vinod Pandey, Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Constable Virendra Prasad were shifted in a jeep for being admitted in the hospital. The deceased Rambhushan was handed over to Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari. When Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari with the help of villagers, namely, Chandra Shekhar and Kailash was bringing Rambhushan to police station, other villagers assembled on the spot and attacked Rambhushan and started beating him. Head Constable, Ramanuj Tiwari made an attempt to save Rambhushan, but in vain as a result of assault by the villagers, Rambhushan died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It was also stated in the application that Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari lodged a report at Police Station, Uchehra on the basis of which Crime No. 98/89 was registered. S.I. Vinod Pandey succumbed to the injuries caused by deceased Rambhushan. As the villagers who assaulted Rambhushan, could not be identified, a final report of the offence was submitted. A magisterial enquiry was also directed As per report of magisterial enquiry the death of Rambhushan was caused by the villagers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order, allowed the application under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code and discharged the applicants Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari holding that their act was covered and protected by virtue of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code as the act was done while discharging the official duty. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against other accused persons who are the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, complainant Kalka Prasad has filed Criminal Revision No. 494/99 against discharge of accused persons Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari. The other accused persons except Kailash against whom charges were framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, have filed Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I shall first proceed to decide Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners of these revisions submitted that where the aforesaid police officers were discharged, giving them benefit of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, the present petitioners could not have been held responsible for the offence as they had gone to help the police personnel who were assaulted by the absconding accused in which one S.I. Vinod Pandey sustained injuries and later on, died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention can not be accepted. Protection under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code is available to the public servants only. Admittedly, petitioners are not public servants and, therefore, they were not entitled to the protection under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. Merely because the petitioners had gone to help the police personnel, protection of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code can not be made available to them. The provisions of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code arc to be construed strictly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Learned Counsel next contended' that as the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, it was obligatory for the complainant to examine all the witnesses cited in the complaint and if the same was not done, complaint could not have been registered. Non-examination of witnesses vitiates further proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. A perusal of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code reveals that Magistrate is required to call upon the complainant to produce his witnesses and examine them on oath. The duty of Magistrate in complaints about offences triable by Sessions Judge becomes onerous. The legislative intent behind the said proviso must be carried to its logical end. A person facing trial of a serious offence should not be taken by surprise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. But where complainant is satisfied with examination of only certain witnesses before committal of case it is not incumbent on committing Magistrate to record evidence of remaining witnesses. It is evident from the language of the proviso that it does not require all the prosecution witnesses to be examined. Only witnesses of the choice of complainant can be examined. The words 'all his witnesses' under proviso to Section 202(2) do not refer literally to all prosecution witnesses in number rather to all complainant's witnesses to whom he considers material to prove his case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is not the case of the accused persons that the witnesses who were material for the purpose of finding out the truth or otherwise of the complaint were not examined. At this stage it can not be said that justice has not been done and the truth did not come to light. Proviso to sub-section (2) (supra) will not be infringed if the witnesses given up by the complainant are not examined. If the complainant closes evidence after examining some of witnesses, Magistrate can not compel him to examine all named witnesses. Where the Magistrate considers that the evidence of certain witnesses is necessary he can summon them as Court witnesses. It is not the case of the accused persons that the complainant disclosed his intention to produce some witnesses and the Court refused to examine them. Where all the witnesses produced by the complainant were examined, it is futile to urge that the provisions of Section 202 were not complied with.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and no reason has been assigned for the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. This contention also is sans substance. The complainant has given an explanation for delay in lodging the complaint. He has explained that Marg No. 3789 was registered regarding the death of his son. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded and he was assured by the District Magistrate, Satna that action will be taken to ensure that the guilty persons are punished and directions were given to Executive Magistrate Nagod, to hold an enquiry in the matter. The Magistrate, accordingly held an enquiry and submitted his report on which no action was taken. This compelled the complainant to file the complaint case. The explanation can not be said to be unsatisfactory. Even otherwise, the delay in filing the complaint can not be a ground for discharging the petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts emerging from the material collected by the prosecution during investigation do not constitute the offence for which the accused persons are alleged to have been charged, therefore, neither the complaint could have been registered, nor the charge could have been framed against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The committing Magistrate, after examining the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code found that the material disclosed commission of offence and he was satisfied that there were reasons to proceed against accused persons, therefore, the summoning order of the Magistrate can not be interfered with. Where the order issuing process is passed on legal evidence and it is not wholly perverse, no interference by this Court is called for in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction which is very limited. In this case no glaring feature is brought to my notice which would tantamount to miscarriage of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. At the time of framing the charge the only prima facie case is to be seen from the material submitted by the complainant. It is not necessary to enter into detail and discuss the evidence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the impugned order has given the adequate reasons for framing the charges.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. It is true that unless there is a strong suspicion against a person he should not be subjected to the agony of a protracted criminal trial by framing charges but where the Trial Judge has considered all the material available on record and found that prima facie the facts do constitute the offence against the accused, the High Court can not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in the case is reliable or not to justify the framing of the charges.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The purpose of Sections 227 and 228, Criminal Procedure Code is to ensure that accusation made against the accused are not frivolous. Of course, where the material available in the case creates a very strong ground and suspicion about the complicity of the accused in the crime, the Court has to frame charge as the truth, veracity and effect of evidence can not be judged at initial stage of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Thus, the order of framing charge against the petitioners of Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99 is perfectly justified and I do not find any illegality in the order impugned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. Now, I proceed to consider Criminal Revision No. 494/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the object of the section is to guard against vexatious proceedings against public servants and to secure a well-considered opinion of superior authority before a prosecution is launched against them. It is not the part of official duly to commit murder of a person. The offence of murder can not be said to be under the cover of official duly. Where the act of the police officers as complained of, can not even remotely be connected with discharge of their official duty, they could not have been discharged applying provisions of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. As against this, Shri Manikant Sharma and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, submitted that the police went in search of an accused who was absconding. Due to the fire opened by the absconding accused, the Sub- Inspector, Vinod Pandey was seriously injured, who ultimately died and other police personnel also received firearm injuries. Ram Bhusan was assaulted by the villagers and not by the police personnel. The acts complained of against the respondents were committed by the public servants in discharge of their official duties or purporting to be in the discharge of official duty. Therefore, the prohibition imposed by statute for taking cognizance applies and the learned Trial Judge rightly allowed the application under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In determining the question whether the alleged offence was committed in official capacity or not the Court must at the outset have regard to the allegations in the complaint case. In the complaint and the evidence recorded, averments have been made that respondent No. 2 forced Ram Bhushan to get down from the jeep and instructed respondent No. 1. Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari and other villagers to finish Ram Bhushan. Such an act on the part of respondents can not be said to be in discharge of their official duties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. It is true that Court has the liberty to look beyond the form in which the allegations have been made and Court is not required to confine itself to the allegations in the complaint. It can take into account all the materials on record at the time when the question is raised and called for consideration. At this stage from the material on record, it can not be said that the act complained of was done in the discharge of official duty. The Court is not expected or entitled to anticipate the defence. From the facts alleged, it can not be said at this stage that no offence was committed. It is not a part of official duty to commit offence. An officer is not expected to commit murder. Where prima facie it appears that the offence alleged is not under the cover of official duty, Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code is not attracted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on Abdul Vaheed Nasir v. State of Bihar, (2000) 8 SCC 500 and Gulam Hussain v. Abdul Rashid, (2000) 8 SCC 507. In both the cases, the directions for opening fire was given by SDM where the situation became out of control. It was held that the order of fire was in exercise of official duty. In the case in hand, the Dy. S.P. had no authority to order the opening of fire. At the present stage of the case, from the material on record it can not be said that sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code was necessary. However, if at the subsequent stage of the case, it is found that the case as put forward by the prosecution fails or the defence establishes that the act purported to be done is in the course of discharge of official duty, the proceedings will have to be dropped.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. It is well settled that the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be raised at any time even at the time of conclusion of trial. It is a case where it may not be possible to decide the question effectively without giving opportunity to the defence to establish that what they did was in discharge of official duty. Therefore, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to examine during the course of trial or even at the time of conclusion of trial as to whether the claim of the accused, that the act they did was in the course of the performance of their official duty was reasonable one and it was neither pretended nor fanciful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. For the foregoing reasons Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99 are dismissed and the impugned order, framing charges against the petitioners of these revisions is maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">33. So far as the Criminal Procedure No. 494/99 is concerned, the same is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. However, it may be observed that during the course of trial, the Court below shall be at liberty to consider this question afresh and deal with the same at the subsequent stage or in the main judgment in the light of the provisions of the law without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(1)MPHT89; 2004(4)MPLJ54',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Rampyari',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '508745'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rampyare and ors. Vs. Rampyari Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 397/401',
		(int) 1 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 34',
		(int) 5 => 'Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 200',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 8 => 'Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 13 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 14 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 15 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 16 => 'Section 202',
		(int) 17 => 'Section 202(2',
		(int) 18 => 'Section 202',
		(int) 19 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 20 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 21 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 22 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 23 => 'Section 197',
		(int) 24 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 25 => 'the Criminal Procedure No'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Jain',
		(int) 1 => 'Criminal Revision No',
		(int) 2 => 'Kalka Prasad',
		(int) 3 => 'Criminal Revision No',
		(int) 4 => 'Kalka Prasad',
		(int) 5 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 6 => 'Criminal Revision No',
		(int) 7 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
		(int) 8 => 'Kalka Prasad',
		(int) 9 => 'Criminal Revision',
		(int) 10 => 'Criminal Revision',
		(int) 11 => 'Kalka Prasad',
		(int) 12 => 'P.S. Uchchra',
		(int) 13 => 'Sessions Court',
		(int) 14 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 15 => 'Kalka Prasad',
		(int) 16 => 'Kalka Prasad',
		(int) 17 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 18 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 19 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 20 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 21 => 'Criminal Revision',
		(int) 22 => 'the Trial Court',
		(int) 23 => 'S.I. Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 24 => 'Constable Virendra Prasad',
		(int) 25 => 'Constable Virendra Prasad',
		(int) 26 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 27 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 28 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 29 => 'Police Station, Uchehra',
		(int) 30 => 'S.I. Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 31 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 32 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 33 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 34 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 35 => 'Kalka Prasad',
		(int) 36 => 'Criminal Revision No',
		(int) 37 => 'Kailash',
		(int) 38 => 'the Additional Sessions',
		(int) 39 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
		(int) 40 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
		(int) 41 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 42 => 'S.I.',
		(int) 43 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 44 => 'the Court of Session',
		(int) 45 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 46 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 47 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 48 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 49 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 50 => 'Court',
		(int) 51 => 'Court',
		(int) 52 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 53 => 'the District Magistrate',
		(int) 54 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 55 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 56 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 57 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 58 => 'Court',
		(int) 59 => 'Learned Additional Sessions',
		(int) 60 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 61 => 'Sections 227',
		(int) 62 => 'Court',
		(int) 63 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
		(int) 64 => 'Criminal Revision No',
		(int) 65 => 'Criminal Procedure Code.28',
		(int) 66 => 'Court',
		(int) 67 => 'Court',
		(int) 68 => 'Court',
		(int) 69 => 'Court',
		(int) 70 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 71 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 72 => 'Trial Court',
		(int) 73 => 'Criminal Revision Nos',
		(int) 74 => 'Additional Sessions',
		(int) 75 => 'Court'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Krisna Narayan',
		(int) 1 => 'Anr',
		(int) 2 => 'Tiwari',
		(int) 3 => 'Anr',
		(int) 4 => 'Satna',
		(int) 5 => 'Arun Kumar',
		(int) 6 => 'Arun Kumar',
		(int) 7 => 'Sessions Trial Nos',
		(int) 8 => 'Satna',
		(int) 9 => 'Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 10 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 11 => 'Geeta Bai',
		(int) 12 => 'Kirtan Bai',
		(int) 13 => 'Sangita',
		(int) 14 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 15 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 16 => 'Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 17 => 'Constable Virendra Tiwari',
		(int) 18 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 19 => 'Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 20 => 'Geeta Bai',
		(int) 21 => 'Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 22 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 23 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 24 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
		(int) 25 => 'Geeta Bai',
		(int) 26 => 'Kirtan Bai',
		(int) 27 => 'Sangita',
		(int) 28 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
		(int) 29 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 30 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 31 => 'S.I. Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 32 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 33 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
		(int) 34 => 'Chandra Shekhar',
		(int) 35 => 'Head Constable',
		(int) 36 => 'Ramanuj Tiwari',
		(int) 37 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
		(int) 38 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 39 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
		(int) 40 => 'Chandra Pathak',
		(int) 41 => 'Satna',
		(int) 42 => 'proceedings.14',
		(int) 43 => 'Marg',
		(int) 44 => 'Satna',
		(int) 45 => 'Magistrate Nagod',
		(int) 46 => 'Shri Agrawal',
		(int) 47 => 'Shri Manikant Sharma',
		(int) 48 => 'Vinod Pandey',
		(int) 49 => 'Ram Bhusan',
		(int) 50 => 'Ram Bhushan',
		(int) 51 => 'Constable Ramanuj Tiwari',
		(int) 52 => 'Ram Bhushan',
		(int) 53 => 'Abdul Vaheed Nasir v. State of',
		(int) 54 => 'Gulam Hussain v. Abdul Rashid'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '29',
		(int) 1 => '116/96',
		(int) 2 => '109',
		(int) 3 => '302',
		(int) 4 => '23-10-1989.3',
		(int) 5 => '603/99',
		(int) 6 => 'about 4',
		(int) 7 => '82/89',
		(int) 8 => '141/89',
		(int) 9 => '41/90',
		(int) 10 => '98/89',
		(int) 11 => '603/99.10',
		(int) 12 => '603/99.11',
		(int) 13 => 'one',
		(int) 14 => '2',
		(int) 15 => '2',
		(int) 16 => '200',
		(int) 17 => '202',
		(int) 18 => '228',
		(int) 19 => '494/99.26',
		(int) 20 => '2',
		(int) 21 => '1',
		(int) 22 => '8',
		(int) 23 => '8',
		(int) 24 => '507'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '603/99',
		(int) 1 => '27-8-1989',
		(int) 2 => '670/99',
		(int) 3 => '670/99',
		(int) 4 => '3789',
		(int) 5 => '2000',
		(int) 6 => '2000'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 1 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 2 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 3 => 'Rambhushan died.6',
		(int) 4 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 5 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 6 => 'Rambhushan'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 1 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 2 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 3 => 'Rambhushan',
		(int) 4 => 'Rambhushan died.7'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 1 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 2 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 3 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 4 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 5 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 6 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 7 => 'Kailash',
		(int) 8 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 9 => 'S.P.',
		(int) 10 => 'died.12',
		(int) 11 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 12 => 'Bihar'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Village Ragoli',
		(int) 1 => 'Village Ragoli',
		(int) 2 => 'Village Uchehra'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '508745',
		'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 197, 200, 202, 202(2), 227 and 228',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 670/1999',
		'appellant' => 'Rampyare and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rampyare and ors. Vs. Rampyari',
		'casenote' => ' Criminal - Discharge of Duty - Conviction - Section 197 of code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr PC) - Some dispute arose between deceased and X for land - Deceased assaulted X and he died consequently - Criminal registered against deceased and pending before Trial Court - Thereafter, respondents alongwith police personnel caught deceased and killed him - Complainant lodged complaint against police personnel and respondents - Trial Court acquitted police personnel and framed charges against respondents - Hence, present revision filed by complainant against acquittal of police official and by respondents for challenging their conviction - Held, as per established facts, respondent no 2 forced deceased to get down from jeep and directed other respondents to finish deceased - Considering facts on record it was clear that act on part of respondents can not be said to discharge of their official duties - Thus, they were rightly convicted - Further, act or offence of police personnel not covered under official duty and Section 197 Cr PC did not attracted - Police official had no authority to order open fire - Thus, they were rightly convicted - Hence, impugned order of Trial Court was set aside - Criminal revision of claimants allowed and criminal revision of respondents dismissed - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 147; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Liability of Insurer - Third party insurance  Held, The insured who is a party to the insurance is not a third party for the purpose of Chapter XI of the Act, particularly Section 147 thereof. Thus, any person other than the insurer and the insured who are parties to the insurance policy is a third party. The insurer, however, would not be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of Section 147 of the Act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. Hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under Section 147 of the Act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. An employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. But merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless Section 147 of the Act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. Section 147 (1)(b) of the Act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of Chapter XI of the Act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. Even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the Proviso to sub-section (1)of Section 147 of the Act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the Proviso to sub-section (1`) of Section 147 of the Act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Sarvanlal, 2004 (4) MPHT 404 (D.B) Overruled]. 
Sections 147 & 96 & M.P. M.V. Rules, 1994, Rule 97; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Control of Transport vehicles  M.P. Rules relate to provisions of control of transport vehicles and it cannot be adopted for interpreting Sections 147 and 145 of the M.V. Act to hold the insurer liable for death or bodily injury suffered by passenger. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Sarvanlal, 2004 (4) MPHT 404 (D.B) Overruled]. -  1. This order shall govern disposal of this revision as well as Criminal Revision No. 15. But where complainant is satisfied with examination of only certain witnesses before committal of case it is not incumbent on committing Magistrate to record evidence of remaining witnesses. 20. The committing Magistrate, after examining the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code found that the material disclosed commission of offence and he was satisfied that there were reasons to proceed against accused persons, therefore, the summoning order of the Magistrate can not be interfered with. 22. It is true that unless there is a strong suspicion against a person he should not be subjected to the agony of a protracted criminal trial by framing charges but where the Trial Judge has considered all the material available on record and found that prima facie the facts do constitute the offence against the accused, the High Court can not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in the case is reliable or not to justify the framing of the charges. Of course, where the material available in the case creates a very strong ground and suspicion about the complicity of the accused in the crime, the Court has to frame charge as the truth, veracity and effect of evidence can not be judged at initial stage of trial. 494/99. 26. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the object of the section is to guard against vexatious proceedings against public servants and to secure a well-considered opinion of superior authority before a prosecution is launched against them. Where the act of the police officers as complained of, can not even remotely be connected with discharge of their official duty, they could not have been discharged applying provisions of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. The acts complained of against the respondents were committed by the public servants in discharge of their official duties or purporting to be in the discharge of official duty. At this stage from the material on record, it can not be said that the act complained of was done in the discharge of official duty. 31. It is well settled that the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be raised at any time even at the time of conclusion of trial. It is a case where it may not be possible to decide the question effectively without giving opportunity to the defence to establish that what they did was in discharge of official duty.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => ' and Gulam Hussain v. Abdul Rashid;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Agrawal, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Manikant Sharma and ; G.S. Ahluwalia, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This order shall govern disposal of this revision as well as Criminal Revision No. 603/99, Krisna Narayan and Anr. v. Kalka Prasad, and Criminal Revision No. 494/99, Kalka Prasad v. Ram Naresh Tiwari and Anr. All the aforesaid revisions under Section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code arc directed against the order dated 29-1-1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No, 116/96 whereby an application filed by the respondents of Criminal Revision No. 494/99 under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code was allowed and charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109 read with Section 302 and 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code were framed against applicants of Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The facts of the case which led to filing of these revisions are that a complaint under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code was filed by complainant Kalka Prasad, who is applicant in Criminal Revision No. 494/99, for the aforesaid offences against the accused persons who are the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99 and respondents in Criminal Revision No. 494/99, on the allegation of having committed murder of Rambhushan, on 23-10-1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was alleged that a long drawn litigation regarding property was pending between Kalka Prasad and the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99. On 27-8-1989 at about 4 P.M. a quarrel broke out between Rambhushan and Arun Kumar in which Arun Kumar died. A Crime No. 82/89 was registered at P.S. Uchchra. Regarding this incident, Sessions Trial Nos. 141/89 and 41/90 were pending before Sessions Court, Satna, for offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. In this case deceased Rambhushan could not be arrested and he was making efforts to get anticipatory bail. On the date of incident, Police Inspector Vinod Pandey, Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and other police personnel surrounded the house of complainant Kalka Prasad. Rambhushan, his sister Geeta Bai and grand daughters of complainant Kalka Prasad, namely, Kirtan Bai and Sangita were present in the house.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. When Rambhushan tried to escape, the police personnel and some of the villagers who arc accused in the complaint case, followed him and opened fire as a result of which a bullet hit the leg of deceased Rambhushan and he fell down. He was caught hold by police personnel and villagers, and was tied with a rope. Rambhushan also opened fire. Firearm injuries were caused to Inspector Vinod Pandey, Constable Virendra Tiwari and Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak. Inspector Vinod Pandey received serious injuries. Enraged by this incident, the police personnel assaulted Rambhushan. When his sister Geeta Bai tried to interfere, she was also abused. Inspector Vinod Pandey and Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak sat in the jeep. Injured accused Rambhushan was lodged in the jeep but on the directions of Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak, Rambhushan was thrown from the jeep.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was further alleged that the Dy. S.P. then directed the police personnel and villagers to kill Rambhushan and to bring him dead at the police station. When the jeep moved from the spot, Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari and other police personnel took Rambhushan towards Village Ragoli and beat him. When Geeta Bai, Kirtan Bai and Sangita tried to intervene at this stage also, they were abused. The deceased was then taken to the ground of Village Ragoli and was assaulted again. As a result of beating Rambhushan died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari and Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak who were the accused persons in complaint case and are respondents in Criminal Revision No. 494/99, filed an application before the Trial Court under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code stating that they had gone in search of absconding accused Rambhushan. When they reached in the forest near Village Uchehra, deceased Rambhushan fired at them which hit S.I. Vinod Pandey, Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Constable Virendra Prasad. Despite all this, Rambhushan was arrested. S.I. Vinod Pandey, Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Constable Virendra Prasad were shifted in a jeep for being admitted in the hospital. The deceased Rambhushan was handed over to Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari. When Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari with the help of villagers, namely, Chandra Shekhar and Kailash was bringing Rambhushan to police station, other villagers assembled on the spot and attacked Rambhushan and started beating him. Head Constable, Ramanuj Tiwari made an attempt to save Rambhushan, but in vain as a result of assault by the villagers, Rambhushan died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It was also stated in the application that Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari lodged a report at Police Station, Uchehra on the basis of which Crime No. 98/89 was registered. S.I. Vinod Pandey succumbed to the injuries caused by deceased Rambhushan. As the villagers who assaulted Rambhushan, could not be identified, a final report of the offence was submitted. A magisterial enquiry was also directed As per report of magisterial enquiry the death of Rambhushan was caused by the villagers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order, allowed the application under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code and discharged the applicants Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari holding that their act was covered and protected by virtue of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code as the act was done while discharging the official duty. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against other accused persons who are the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, complainant Kalka Prasad has filed Criminal Revision No. 494/99 against discharge of accused persons Dy. S.P. Ramesh Chandra Pathak and Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari. The other accused persons except Kailash against whom charges were framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, have filed Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I shall first proceed to decide Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners of these revisions submitted that where the aforesaid police officers were discharged, giving them benefit of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, the present petitioners could not have been held responsible for the offence as they had gone to help the police personnel who were assaulted by the absconding accused in which one S.I. Vinod Pandey sustained injuries and later on, died.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The contention can not be accepted. Protection under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code is available to the public servants only. Admittedly, petitioners are not public servants and, therefore, they were not entitled to the protection under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. Merely because the petitioners had gone to help the police personnel, protection of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code can not be made available to them. The provisions of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code arc to be construed strictly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Learned Counsel next contended' that as the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, it was obligatory for the complainant to examine all the witnesses cited in the complaint and if the same was not done, complaint could not have been registered. Non-examination of witnesses vitiates further proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. A perusal of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code reveals that Magistrate is required to call upon the complainant to produce his witnesses and examine them on oath. The duty of Magistrate in complaints about offences triable by Sessions Judge becomes onerous. The legislative intent behind the said proviso must be carried to its logical end. A person facing trial of a serious offence should not be taken by surprise.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. But where complainant is satisfied with examination of only certain witnesses before committal of case it is not incumbent on committing Magistrate to record evidence of remaining witnesses. It is evident from the language of the proviso that it does not require all the prosecution witnesses to be examined. Only witnesses of the choice of complainant can be examined. The words 'all his witnesses' under proviso to Section 202(2) do not refer literally to all prosecution witnesses in number rather to all complainant's witnesses to whom he considers material to prove his case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is not the case of the accused persons that the witnesses who were material for the purpose of finding out the truth or otherwise of the complaint were not examined. At this stage it can not be said that justice has not been done and the truth did not come to light. Proviso to sub-section (2) (supra) will not be infringed if the witnesses given up by the complainant are not examined. If the complainant closes evidence after examining some of witnesses, Magistrate can not compel him to examine all named witnesses. Where the Magistrate considers that the evidence of certain witnesses is necessary he can summon them as Court witnesses. It is not the case of the accused persons that the complainant disclosed his intention to produce some witnesses and the Court refused to examine them. Where all the witnesses produced by the complainant were examined, it is futile to urge that the provisions of Section 202 were not complied with.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and no reason has been assigned for the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. This contention also is sans substance. The complainant has given an explanation for delay in lodging the complaint. He has explained that Marg No. 3789 was registered regarding the death of his son. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded and he was assured by the District Magistrate, Satna that action will be taken to ensure that the guilty persons are punished and directions were given to Executive Magistrate Nagod, to hold an enquiry in the matter. The Magistrate, accordingly held an enquiry and submitted his report on which no action was taken. This compelled the complainant to file the complaint case. The explanation can not be said to be unsatisfactory. Even otherwise, the delay in filing the complaint can not be a ground for discharging the petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts emerging from the material collected by the prosecution during investigation do not constitute the offence for which the accused persons are alleged to have been charged, therefore, neither the complaint could have been registered, nor the charge could have been framed against them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The committing Magistrate, after examining the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code found that the material disclosed commission of offence and he was satisfied that there were reasons to proceed against accused persons, therefore, the summoning order of the Magistrate can not be interfered with. Where the order issuing process is passed on legal evidence and it is not wholly perverse, no interference by this Court is called for in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction which is very limited. In this case no glaring feature is brought to my notice which would tantamount to miscarriage of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. At the time of framing the charge the only prima facie case is to be seen from the material submitted by the complainant. It is not necessary to enter into detail and discuss the evidence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the impugned order has given the adequate reasons for framing the charges.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. It is true that unless there is a strong suspicion against a person he should not be subjected to the agony of a protracted criminal trial by framing charges but where the Trial Judge has considered all the material available on record and found that prima facie the facts do constitute the offence against the accused, the High Court can not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in the case is reliable or not to justify the framing of the charges.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. The purpose of Sections 227 and 228, Criminal Procedure Code is to ensure that accusation made against the accused are not frivolous. Of course, where the material available in the case creates a very strong ground and suspicion about the complicity of the accused in the crime, the Court has to frame charge as the truth, veracity and effect of evidence can not be judged at initial stage of trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Thus, the order of framing charge against the petitioners of Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99 is perfectly justified and I do not find any illegality in the order impugned.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. Now, I proceed to consider Criminal Revision No. 494/99.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the object of the section is to guard against vexatious proceedings against public servants and to secure a well-considered opinion of superior authority before a prosecution is launched against them. It is not the part of official duly to commit murder of a person. The offence of murder can not be said to be under the cover of official duly. Where the act of the police officers as complained of, can not even remotely be connected with discharge of their official duty, they could not have been discharged applying provisions of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. As against this, Shri Manikant Sharma and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, submitted that the police went in search of an accused who was absconding. Due to the fire opened by the absconding accused, the Sub- Inspector, Vinod Pandey was seriously injured, who ultimately died and other police personnel also received firearm injuries. Ram Bhusan was assaulted by the villagers and not by the police personnel. The acts complained of against the respondents were committed by the public servants in discharge of their official duties or purporting to be in the discharge of official duty. Therefore, the prohibition imposed by statute for taking cognizance applies and the learned Trial Judge rightly allowed the application under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. In determining the question whether the alleged offence was committed in official capacity or not the Court must at the outset have regard to the allegations in the complaint case. In the complaint and the evidence recorded, averments have been made that respondent No. 2 forced Ram Bhushan to get down from the jeep and instructed respondent No. 1. Head Constable Ramanuj Tiwari and other villagers to finish Ram Bhushan. Such an act on the part of respondents can not be said to be in discharge of their official duties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. It is true that Court has the liberty to look beyond the form in which the allegations have been made and Court is not required to confine itself to the allegations in the complaint. It can take into account all the materials on record at the time when the question is raised and called for consideration. At this stage from the material on record, it can not be said that the act complained of was done in the discharge of official duty. The Court is not expected or entitled to anticipate the defence. From the facts alleged, it can not be said at this stage that no offence was committed. It is not a part of official duty to commit offence. An officer is not expected to commit murder. Where prima facie it appears that the offence alleged is not under the cover of official duty, Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code is not attracted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on Abdul Vaheed Nasir v. State of Bihar, (2000) 8 SCC 500 and Gulam Hussain v. Abdul Rashid, (2000) 8 SCC 507. In both the cases, the directions for opening fire was given by SDM where the situation became out of control. It was held that the order of fire was in exercise of official duty. In the case in hand, the Dy. S.P. had no authority to order the opening of fire. At the present stage of the case, from the material on record it can not be said that sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code was necessary. However, if at the subsequent stage of the case, it is found that the case as put forward by the prosecution fails or the defence establishes that the act purported to be done is in the course of discharge of official duty, the proceedings will have to be dropped.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. It is well settled that the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be raised at any time even at the time of conclusion of trial. It is a case where it may not be possible to decide the question effectively without giving opportunity to the defence to establish that what they did was in discharge of official duty. Therefore, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to examine during the course of trial or even at the time of conclusion of trial as to whether the claim of the accused, that the act they did was in the course of the performance of their official duty was reasonable one and it was neither pretended nor fanciful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. For the foregoing reasons Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99 are dismissed and the impugned order, framing charges against the petitioners of these revisions is maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">33. So far as the Criminal Procedure No. 494/99 is concerned, the same is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. However, it may be observed that during the course of trial, the Court below shall be at liberty to consider this question afresh and deal with the same at the subsequent stage or in the main judgment in the light of the provisions of the law without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(1)MPHT89; 2004(4)MPLJ54',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Rampyari',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '508745'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 397/401, the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 197, Section 302, Section 34, Indian Penal Code, Section 200, Section 302, Indian Penal Code, Section 197, Section 197, Section 197, Section 197, Section 197, Section 197, Section 197, Section 202, Section 202(2, Section 202, Section 197, Section 197, Section 197, Section 197, Section 197, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure No

ORG: Jain, Criminal Revision No, Kalka Prasad, Criminal Revision No, Kalka Prasad, Additional Sessions, Criminal Revision No, Criminal Revision Nos, Kalka Prasad, Criminal Revision, Criminal Revision, Kalka Prasad, P.S. Uchchra, Sessions Court, Rambhushan, Kalka Prasad, Kalka Prasad, Rambhushan, Rambhushan, S.P., Rambhushan, Criminal Revision, the Trial Court, S.I. Vinod Pandey, Constable Virendra Prasad, Constable Virendra Prasad, Rambhushan, Rambhushan, Rambhushan, Police Station, Uchehra, S.I. Vinod Pandey, Rambhushan, Rambhushan, Additional Sessions, Additional Sessions, Kalka Prasad, Criminal Revision No, Kailash, the Additional Sessions, Criminal Revision Nos, Criminal Revision Nos, Learned Counsel, S.I., Learned Counsel, the Court of Session, Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate, Court, Court, Learned Counsel, the District Magistrate, Magistrate, Learned Counsel, Magistrate, Magistrate, Court, Learned Additional Sessions, the High Court, Sections 227, Court, Criminal Revision Nos, Criminal Revision No, Criminal Procedure Code.28, Court, Court, Court, Court, Learned Counsel, S.P., Trial Court, Criminal Revision Nos, Additional Sessions, Court

PERSON: Krisna Narayan, Anr, Tiwari, Anr, Satna, Arun Kumar, Arun Kumar, Sessions Trial Nos, Satna, Vinod Pandey, Chandra Pathak, Geeta Bai, Kirtan Bai, Sangita, Rambhushan, Rambhushan, Vinod Pandey, Constable Virendra Tiwari, Chandra Pathak, Vinod Pandey, Geeta Bai, Vinod Pandey, Chandra Pathak, Chandra Pathak, Constable Ramanuj Tiwari, Geeta Bai, Kirtan Bai, Sangita, Constable Ramanuj Tiwari, Chandra Pathak, Chandra Pathak, S.I. Vinod Pandey, Chandra Pathak, Constable Ramanuj Tiwari, Chandra Shekhar, Head Constable, Ramanuj Tiwari, Constable Ramanuj Tiwari, Chandra Pathak, Constable Ramanuj Tiwari, Chandra Pathak, Satna, proceedings.14, Marg, Satna, Magistrate Nagod, Shri Agrawal, Shri Manikant Sharma, Vinod Pandey, Ram Bhusan, Ram Bhushan, Constable Ramanuj Tiwari, Ram Bhushan, Abdul Vaheed Nasir v. State of, Gulam Hussain v. Abdul Rashid

CARDINAL: 29, 116/96, 109, 302, 23-10-1989.3, 603/99, about 4, 82/89, 141/89, 41/90, 98/89, 603/99.10, 603/99.11, one, 2, 2, 200, 202, 228, 494/99.26, 2, 1, 8, 8, 507

DATE: 603/99, 27-8-1989, 670/99, 670/99, 3789, 2000, 2000

LOC: Rambhushan, Rambhushan, Rambhushan, Rambhushan died.6, Rambhushan, Rambhushan, Rambhushan

NORP: Rambhushan, Rambhushan, Rambhushan, Rambhushan, Rambhushan died.7

GPE: S.P., S.P., S.P., S.P., S.P., S.P., S.P., Kailash, S.P., S.P., died.12, Counsel, Bihar

FAC: Village Ragoli, Village Ragoli, Village Uchehra

ORDINAL: first