Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court

Supreme Court Allows Prosecution of Police Personnel in Assault Case, Rejects Quashing of Charges

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the Supreme Court of India upheld the prosecution of police personnel accused of assault in a case involving unauthorized entry, abuse, and physical assault. The apex court rejected the quashing of charges sought by the accused police personnel, thereby clearing the path for further legal proceedings.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Dr. S.M. Mansoori, represented by his legal heir, against Surekha Parmar and others. The complaint alleged that Surekha Parmar, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) at the Mahila Police Station in Jabalpur, along with fellow officers, forcefully entered Dr. Mansoori's residence and subjected him and his family members to physical abuse and verbal harassment.

The High Court had previously quashed the charges against the accused police personnel, citing the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). However, the Supreme Court opined that it was premature to conclude whether the acts alleged were performed within the scope of official duty. The requirement for sanction, according to the Court, should be determined after the evidence is recorded.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized that at this stage, the allegations raised serious concerns and warranted further investigation. The Court's decision has effectively reinstated the charges against the police personnel and permitted the continuation of legal proceedings.

The verdict delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal marks an important step in upholding accountability and ensuring that public servants are held responsible for their actions. The ruling also clarifies that the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. should not impede the prosecution process when the allegations raise doubts about the performance of official duties.

The case will now proceed before the appropriate court, where evidence will be examined, and a final decision on the issue of sanction will be made. The judgment serves as a reminder that the law will not shield those accused of misconduct, irrespective of their official positions, and underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding justice and the rule of law.

Date of Judgment: April 12, 2023

S.M. MANSOORI (DEAD) THR. L.R. vs SUREKHA PARMAR & ORS. 

Latest Legal News