"While dealing with the primary question of extent of immunity and privilege extended to the Head of a State during his term of office, which answers the jurisdictional fact, we proceed to quash the impugned FIR against the petitioner (Governor) on that count alone, with liberty to police to proceed in accordance with law, after the petitioner ceases to be the Governor," the court said quashing the FIR.
"The immunity and privilege is only during the term of office. At the same time, the immunity and privilege extended to the Governor will not impair or whittle down the powers of the police to investigate the criminal case registered against other accused who cannot claim such privilege and in the process, record statement of the petitioner, if required," the judges observed.
"We say so because the immunity in Article 361(2) or 361(3) does not extend to recording of statement of the Head of a State by the police in connection with investigation of a crime, if it is so essential.
"The police, however, must take all salutary precautions and observe circumspection while recording statement of the petitioner in the course of investigation so that the majesty of the office of the Governor of the State is not undermined in any manner," the bench said.
