Karnataka HC declines to quash proceedings against cop who defamed judiciary

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings against a police inspector who allegedly defamed the judiciary and disobeyed the trial court’s anticipatory bail order. 

The court noted that in such cases, prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC will not come to the aid of the public servant. 

In July 2021, real-estate businessman Narayana Swamy alias JCB Narayan filed a private complaint against the then Sarjapur police station sub-inspector, V Harish, which the principal civil judge and JMFC Anekal took cognizance in November 2021 under IPC sections 166A, 340, 350, 499, and 506, and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 

The complaint alleged that on the evening of July 10, 2021, the Hulimavu police inspector took Swamy to the DCP’s office in Koramangala for an inquiry.

As he was being released on bail on the same day, sub-inspector Harish and other officials reached there to arrest him in a different case registered at the Sarjapur police station.

Tore, threw bail order

Two advocates accompanying Swamy handed over the bail order passed in the same case. However, Harish tore the order copy and threw it on the floor, saying he was the judge in his police station limits. He also abused the sessions judge, who granted bail to Swamy.

Taking Swamy to the Sarjapur police station, the inspector pointed a revolver at him, saying his name would be entered in the rowdy sheet and he would be killed in an encounter.

Challenging cognizance in this case, the inspector claimed that the magistrate could not have taken cognizance in the absence of prior sanction under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act and Section 197 of the CrPC as he was a police sub-inspector, and the offence was committed while discharging the official duty. 

Justice K Natarajan noted that the CCTV footage, video recording by the advocates, and the photocopy of the bail orders produced reveal that the petitioner Harish disrespected the court order. 

“The petitioner, being a police officer, has defamed the court order, torn the court order, thrown the same on the floor and abused the sessions judge who granted anticipatory bail in filthy language,” the court noted.

“Such a police officer shall be tried and punished in accordance with the law, and even the police department should have taken action against him by conducting a departmental inquiry for doing such type of activities. Such a person, like the petitioner, who has no respect for the law, cannot be shown any sympathy by the court and it is not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings against him,” it said.