Observing that the complainant as well as the accused were police officers and belonged to a ‘uniformed Force’ required to perform duty round the clock, and for which they are required to maintain discipline, the Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a former superintendent of police (SP) accused of assaulting the subordinate with a paperweight who missed a sports event.However, the court quashed criminal proceedings against a former police inspector accused of abusing and threatening the same subordinate, holding that the allegations were connected with maintaining discipline and required prior sanction for prosecution.Justice Ravi V Hosmani was dealing with a plea of two police officers, including the former SP. The circle inspector was accused of verbally threatening a subordinate. The former SP was accused of assaulting the complainant with a paperweight.Also Read | Avoid ‘Orwellian dystopia’: Allahabad High Court blasts UP over DU graduate detention“Complainant as well as accused were Police Officers and belong to a ‘uniformed Force’ required to perform duty round the clock, and for which personnel are required to maintain discipline. Acts complained of insofar as SP are clearly about admonishing complainant for non-participation in Sports Activities, about verbal threats, etc. appear for purposes of maintaining discipline and indisputably have nexus with duty or, in the worst case, within reasonable excesses,” the court said on September 2.The court noted that allegations of physical assault and causing grievous injury do not appear to have a connection with official duty.Police officer alleged workplace assaultThe case arose from a complaint filed by a police officer alleging that on January 2, 2012, he was abused and threatened by senior police officers over his absence from sports activities. He alleged that he was summoned to the SP’s office, where the SP admonished him and allegedly threw a paperweight that struck his eyebrow and caused him a bleeding injury. He claimed that efforts were subsequently made to suppress the incident. Justice Ravi V Hosmani quashed the proceedings against the circle inspector but dismissed SP’s petition.The complainant filed a complaint on January 3, 2012. An FIR was registered on September 3, 2012, and after investigation, the police submitted a ‘B’ report. The complainant filed a protest petition. The Magistrate subsequently took cognisance on July 4, 2015, and issued summons to the accused without passing a specific order on the ‘B’ report.Story continues below this adA police “B report” is a final closure or cancellation report submitted to a magistrate when officers find no evidence or proof against an accused person.The two accused police officers approached the high court seeking quashing of the proceedings, arguing, among other things, that the cognisance was time-barred and that prior sanction for prosecution of government servants was mandatory under Sections of the Karnataka Police Act.Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate K B K Swamy argued that the alleged offences were time-barred under the CrPC as the Magistrate took cognisance on July 4, 2015, more than three years after the January 2, 2012 incident.They contended that the Magistrate had failed to pass a specific order on the police ‘B’ report before taking cognisance.Story continues below this adPaperweight assault not official duty: OrderThe court noted that since the complaint was filed the day after the alleged incident, there was no limitation bar. The court observed that although a Magistrate is required to follow the proper procedure while dealing with a ‘B’ report, failure to pass a separate order on it would not automatically invalidate the proceedings if the Magistrate’s order demonstrates sufficient application of mind to the prosecution material.On sanction for prosecution, the court noted that prior sanction for prosecuting government servants is mandatory. However, the court said, “The nexus test must be applied to determine whether the alleged acts were wholly or reasonably connected with the discharge of official duties.”Regarding the Inspector, the court found that the allegations of abusing the complainant, threatening departmental action, and instigating Accused No. 1 arose from his absence from sports activities.Since the complainant and accused were police officers in a uniformed force requiring discipline, these acts had a nexus with maintaining discipline and were, at the least, reasonable excesses in the discharge of duty. Therefore, absence of sanction was fatal to the prosecution against him.Story continues below this adRegarding SP, the court distinguished the alleged assault. It observed that calling the complainant to the office, locking the doors and, particularly, throwing a paperweight that allegedly caused grievous injury, did not appear to have a connection with official duty.Whether there was justification or a reasonable explanation for the incident would have to be determined at the appropriate stage of trial.The court ultimately quashed the proceedings against the circle inspector but dismissed SP’s petition, allowing him to raise his contentions before the trial court at the appropriate stage.