Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court upheld a decision of the revisional court which had set aside the magistrate’s cognisance against two police officers in connection with a firing incident in Zaheerabad in May 2003.
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Lateef Mohammed Khan, de facto complainant, challenging the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy, in freeing two police officers, P. Sreedhar Reddy (presently an ACP rank officer) and constable N. Gopal in connection with the incident.
The case stemmed from an incident on the intervening night of May 20-21, 2003, when police personnel on patrol in Zaheerabad received information about a theft in shops. On reaching the spot, they saw two persons fleeing. In the course of the altercation, one of them, Mohd. Shafi, allegedly stabbed constable Gopal, snatched his rifle, and pointed it at him. Police officer Sreedhar Reddy opened four rounds of fire, leading to Shafi’s death.
A magisterial enquiry by the Medak collector in 2004 concluded that the firing was in protection of life and not excessive. The CB-CID, after re-investigation in 2008, filed a closure report, treating the firing as an act of private defence under Section 97 of the IPC. Following a protest petition by Khan, the magistrate at Zaheerabad in 2019 took cognisance and issued proceedings against the officers.
On revision, the Sessions Judge set aside the magistrate’s order in 2021, holding that the evidence supported the claim of private defence. Challenging this, Khan approached the High Court seeking prosecution under IPC Section 302 read with Section 34.
Justice Sridevi ruled that the magistrate had erred in relying solely on the protest petition without adequately considering the inquiry report, CB-CID’s closure, and medical evidence. The court held that the material on record indicated the firing occurred in circumstances of private defence while the officers were discharging their duties.
The court underlined that sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory for prosecuting public servants for acts connected to official duty. In this case, the absence of such sanction rendered the magistrate’s cognisance unsustainable. The court therefore upheld the revisional court’s order and dismissed the petition, observing there were no grounds to proceed against the officers.
