Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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