Misuse and or abuse of powers by public servant is not a part of their official duties so no protection u/s.197 of CrPC is available

If the authority vested in a public servant is misused for doing things which are not otherwise permitted under the law, such acts cannot claim the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C.

    In the light of the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra, this Court has to analyse the materials on record. I have already pointed out that the complainant's son was detained in illegal custody for a period of 2 days is not in dispute and also he was summoned to enquire is also not in dispute. It is also to be noted that I have already pointed out the medical evidence with regard to the fact that he was subjected to physical torture and document of Ex.P.28 is clear that he was subjected to man handling and as a result, he took treatment at Janatha Nursing Home. It is also important to note that on account of said humiliation, he took the extreme step of committing suicide as he was tortured, assaulted and detained in illegal custody for a period of 2 days in the police station. It is also apparent prima facie on record that departmental enquiry was conducted and at the fist instance the report was given against these petitioners vide report dated 25.06.2010 and the same would prima facie discloses that the police had excesses their powers. It is also not in dispute that ultimately the son of the complainant was not arraigned as an accused in the said case. It is also not in dispute that the very complainant in the said chain snatching case, has not identified the son of the complainant and there are no criminal antecedents against him. When such being the case, the protection envisaged under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. or Section 170 of KP Act cannot be extended to the petitioners herein.[Para No.27]

    Learned Magistrate, in detail considered the statement of witnesses, who have been examined i.e., 7 in number and also while passing a detailed order, assigned the reasons. Learned Revisional Judge also examined the legal aspect and also the factual aspect of the case and passed a detailed reasoned order and comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the revision. The Court also while issuing the process against the petitioners herein considered the sworn statement as well as allegations made in the complaint and has rightly come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to proceed against the petitioners herein[Para No.28]

    This Court also would like to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal and Another reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 122 regarding Section 197 of Cr.P.C, wherein the object, nature and scope of Section 97 of Cr.P.C. has been reiterated. Wherein it is held that all acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Further, there can be cases of misuse and/or abuse of powers vested in a public servant which can never be said to be a part of the official duties required to be performed by him. The underlying object of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is to enable the authorities to scrutinize the allegations made against a public servant to shield him/her against frivolous, vexatious or false prosecution initiated with the main object of causing embarrassment and harassment to the said official. However, as indicated hereinabove, if the authority vested in a public servant is misused for doing things which are not otherwise permitted under the law, such acts cannot claim the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C.

and have to be considered dehors the duties which a public servant is required to discharge or perform. Hence, in respect of prosecution for such excesses or misuse of authority, no protection can be demanded by the public servant concerned.[Para No.29]

When counsel reports no instructions, it is the duty of the Court to issue notice to the party concerned before proceeding further in the matter

Every litigant ought to be afforded an opportunity of deciding the issue involved on merits without the same being scuttled on mere technicalities

    In the said backdrop, if the decision in Smt. Garuda Sakuntala (supra), as relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellants - plaintiffs is taken into consideration, it held therein that, 'Past conduct of a party regarding default in appearance cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the question as to whether there was 'sufficient cause' for non- appearance of the party on a particular subsequent date i.e. the date on which the latest default is committed. The Court below is not justified in adverting to the previous conduct of the appellant/plaintiff while refusing to set aside the default dismissal order. The Court below ought to have considered whether there was sufficient cause for the absence of the appellant/plaintiff on 15.2.1993 only, and not the previous conduct of the appellant. Hence, the contention of the counsel for respondents, that in view of the previous conduct of the appellant in not attending the court the lower court is right in dismissing the suit for default, cannot be accepted'. It is further held that, 'Apart from that, admittedly, the appellant/plaintiff engaged an advocate to represent her case, and it appears that the said advocate did not make any representation on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. When the counsel reports no instructions, it is the duty of the Court to issue notice to the party concerned before proceeding further in the matter. In this case, no notice is issued to the appellant/plaintiff by the court below to that effect. On this ground also, the order under appeal is liable to be set aside'. The Court has observed that, 'Dismissal of a suit for default of the plaintiff shall always be resorted to by the courts with utmost circumspection. Before passing such default dismissal order, the Courts should keep in view the hardship that may be caused to the plaintiff in deserving cases, of course with exceptions depending on the fact-situation of a given case, because the dismissal of a suit for default of plaintiff operates as a bar for bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The procedural laws are intended to do substantial justice between the parties and not to penalize the parties'. Thus, as observed in the aforesaid decision, it is the

duty of the Court to issue notice to the party concerned before proceeding further in the matter and before passing such default dismissal order, the Courts should keep in view the hardship that may be caused to the plaintiff in deserving cases, of course with exceptions depending on the fact-situation of a given case, because the dismissal of a suit for default of plaintiff operates as a bar for bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. In the case on hand also, the learned advocate representing the appellants - plaintiffs did not remain present as not keeping well and eventually, the suit came to be dismissed for default, however, no prior notice appears to have been issued to the appellants - plaintiffs.[Para No.6.2]

    Adverting to the facts of the present case, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit for default for want of prosecution and by way of impugned order, also dismissed the application for restoration of the said suit. It was the case of the appellants - plaintiffs that since the learned advocate representing the case of the appellants - plaintiffs before the trial Court was not keeping well, he did not remain present before the Court on the date so appointed, however, the learned trial Judge did not appreciate the said fact and considering the past conduct viz. non- appearance of appellants - plaintiffs dismissed the suit for default observing that the suit is aged 10 years. It is settled law as reflected in the decision in Smt. Garuda Sakuntala (supra) that past conduct of a party regarding default in appearance cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the question as to whether there was 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance of the party on a particular subsequent date i.e. the date on which the latest default is committed and the Court below is not justified in adverting to the previous conduct of the appellant/plaintiff while refusing to set aside the default dismissal order. Further, as held therein, when the counsel reports no instructions, it is the duty of the Court to issue notice to the party concerned before proceeding further in the matter. In this case, indisputably, the learned trial Judge has taken into consideration the past conduct of the appellants - plaintiffs while dismissing the suit for default and admittedly, no prior notice appears to have been issued to the appellants - plaintiffs by the learned Court below to that effect.[Para No.6.5]