MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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