Jammu & Kashmir High Court
District Jammu vs Channi Himmat on 28 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 531/2024
Reserved on: 24.07.2026
Pronounced on : 28.07.2026
Uploaded on : 28.07.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Dilbagh Singh
Retd. Head Constable No.
EXJ-875708
S/O Sh. Jagdev Singh
R/O Laswara Deoli
Tehsil Bishnah
District Jammu.
....Petitioners
Through:- Mr. C.B. Slathia, Advocate.
V/S
1. UT of J&K through
Senior Superintendent of
Police, Jammu.
2. Station House Officer,
Police Station,
Channi Himmat, Jammu.
.....Respondents
Through:- Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG.
\
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. Petitioner, through the medium of this petition,
moved under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeks quashment of
chargesheet titled ‘UT of J&K Vs. Dilbagh Singh‘ arising out of
FIR No. 64/2017 registered on 28.05.2017 for the commission
of offences punishable under sections 279/33/304-A RPC
pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate
CRM(M) No. 531/2024 Page 1 of 5
(Municipal Magistrate), Jammu mainly on the ground that the
petitioner was a public servant on the date of occurrence,
when he has been alleged to have committed the offences,
during the discharge of his official duties and that without the
prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC (now Section
218 of BNSS of 2023), he cannot be prosecuted.
02. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed
status report in the case, asserting that the petitioner had
caused accident within the jurisdiction of Police Station,
Channi Himmat, Jammu, whereupon a case was registered
vide FIR No. 64 of 2017 and after investigation of the case, the
chargesheet has been laid in the court of law for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A
RPC; that in a petition filed by the father of the deceased
before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, the Tribunal had
ordered to pay him compensation for an amount of
Rs. 7,62,000/- vide award dated 05.10.2013 payable by the
Director General of Police.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, vehemently,
argued that though a case was registered against the petitioner
for having committed an accident by his alleged rash and
negligent driving, wherein a cyclist child had lost his life, as
such, chargesheet was concluded for the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A RPC, however,
the petitioner, being a public servant, having committed the
offences during discharge of his official duty, cannot be
prosecuted without a prior sanction from the Government of
CRM(M) No. 531/2024 Page 2 of 5
UT of J&K in terms of Section 197 CrPC (now Section 218 of
BNSS 2023). In support of his contention, he has relied upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in a case titled Amal Kumar
Jha Vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported as AIR 2016 SC 2082.
04. Learned counsel for the respondents, ex adverso,
argued that the only contention raised by the petitioner in his
petition is that he cannot be prosecuted in absence of a prior
sanction to prosecute from the Government of UT of J&K; that
the petitioner, though a public servant, does not qualify under
Section 197 CrPC to claim that a prior sanction for his
prosecution is required as his services can be dispensed with
without the sanction of the Government. In support of his
contention, he has referred to Rule 335 of the J&K Police
Rules, which provides that the services of Head Constable,
Sr. Grade, the rank which the petitioner claimed to hold, can
be dispensed with under the orders of Deputy Inspector
General of Police and the same does not require prior sanction
of the Government, as such, the contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is misplaced and is liable to
be rejected.
05. Heard and considered.
06. It will be profitable to appreciate the rival
contentions in the light of Section 197 of J&K CrPC as was
applicable on the date of occurrence. The provision is
extracted as under:
“197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.
(1)When any person who is Judge within the meaning of section 19
of the Ranbir Penal Code or when any Magistrate, or when any
CRM(M) No. 531/2024 Page 3 of 5
public servant who is not removable from his office save by or
with the sanction of the State Government or the Government of
India, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by
him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his
official duties, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence
except with the previous sanction-
(a) in the case of persons employed in connection with the
affairs of the Union, of the Government of India; and
(b) in the case of persons employed in connection with the
affairs of the State, of the Government.
(2) The Government of India or the State Government, as the case
may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in
which, the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such
Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may
specify the Court before which the trial is to be held. ”
07. On a careful perusal of the bare provision of Section
197 of J&K CrPC, it is clear that the sanction to prosecute was
required for those officials/officers, who cannot be removed
from their services without prior sanction of the Government.
For invoking this provision of Section 197 Cr.PC, the Service
Rules governing the Public Servant are to be kept in view.
The public servants can be removed from their services, by the
authorities appointing them, is the baseline of the service
jurisprudence.
08. Petitioner claims to be Head Constable, at the time
of the occurrence. Police Rules provide that a police personnel
of the rank of Head Constable can be removed from his service,
if a junior grade by Superintendent of Police and if in senior
grade by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, in terms of
Rule 335 of the Police Rules. As such, no such approval of the
Government is required in view of Rule 335 of the J&K Police
Rules, for removal of the petitioner from his job. Therefore, in
the considered opinion of this Court, there is no requirement
CRM(M) No. 531/2024 Page 4 of 5
to obtain sanction of the Govt., in terms of Section 197 Cr.PC
for prosecution of the petitioner in a criminal case. The plea
for quashing the charge-sheet on this count, is, thus,
misconceived and is liable to be rejected.
09. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is with regard to a case where the appellant was
incharge of Pathalgaon Hospital of District Raigad, who was
charged with regard to a death of a patient for the commission
of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC for his failure
to provide official vehicle for shifting the patient to district
Hospital, Raigad as Incharge of Primary Health Centre. The
appellant, as per his service rules in that case, would have
been entitled to such a protection, which was held to be
required in the case, however, the case on hand is
distinguishable, in view of the differential factual background.
10. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the
petition, being devoid of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
11. Registry is directed to send down, a copy of this
order to the trial court for information.
(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
28.07.2026
Naresh/Secy.
Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes
Naresh Kumar
2026.07.28 16:55
I attest to the accuracy and No. 531/2024
CRM(M) Page 5 of 5
integrity of this document
