2025 (2) TMI 1218 - SC - Indian Laws

Requirement of sanction for the prosecution of the appellant or whether the Magistrate was correct in taking cognizance against the appellant without there being any sanction - Dismissal of petition filed by the appellant for quashing of the summoning order - appellant is a government servant who had acted in the course of her official duties - sanction for prosecution of the appellant - exercise of powers of High Court u/s 482 of the CrPC to quash the chargesheet and the summoning with respect to the appellant herein - HELD THAT - In Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy 2023 (4) TMI 1431 - SUPREME COURT (LB) disposed of by a three-Judge Bench of this Court on 20.04.2023 of which one of us (Nagarathna J.) was a member it was observed that the question of cognizance being taken in the absence of sanction and thereby Section 197 of the CrPC being flouted is not to be conflated and thereby confused with the question as to whether an offence has been committed. The salutary purpose behind Section 197 of the CrPC is protection being accorded to public servants. It was concluded that learned Magistrate had erred in the facts of the said case in taking cognizance against the appellant therein contrary to the mandate of Section 197 of the CrPC and on that short ground alone the appeal was allowed and the proceedings challenged in Section 482 CrPC were quashed. However it was observed that the same would not stand in the way of the competent authority taking a decision in the matter and/or granting sanction for prosecuting the appellant therein in accordance with law. In the present case it is only to be seen if the accused public servant was acting in the performance of his/her official duties and if the answer is in the affirmative then prior sanction for their prosecution is a condition precedent to the cognizance of the cases against them by the courts. It is therefore largely a disputed question of fact here and not a question of law - The correctness of the allegations with regard to the conduct of the appellant need not be ascertained herein by this Court but the fact that she was acting in her official duty is sufficient to hold that a prior sanction from the department was in fact necessary before the Magistrate taking cognizance against her. The Magistrate therefore erred in proceeding to take cognizance against the appellant without the sanction for prosecution being received from BIS and since BIS has eventually refused to grant sanction for the prosecution of the appellant the prosecution against the appellant could not have been sustained. Section 197 of CrPC does not envisage a concept of deemed sanction. The chargesheet as well as the counter affidavit of the respondent-State have relied upon the judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain to contend that lack of grant of sanction by the concerned authority within relevant time would amount to deemed sanction for prosecution. However a perusal of the said judgment reveals that it did not deal with Section 197 CrPC and rather it dealt with the investigation powers and procedures of Central Bureau of Investigation and Central Vigilance Commission. While it did mention that the time limits for grant of sanction for prosecution must be strictly adhered to there is no observation to the effect that lack of grant of sanction for prosecution within the time limit would amount to deemed sanction for prosecution. The learned Magistrate was not right in taking cognizance of the offence against the appellant herein without there being a sanction for prosecution granted by the competent authority. Further the High Court erred in not considering the fact that the sanction for prosecution was not granted by the competent authority under Section 197 of the CrPC and eventually the sanction was expressly denied by the competent authority with respect to the allegations against the appellant. The necessary sanction not having been granted has vitiated the very initiation of the criminal proceeding against the appellant herein. Consequently the chargesheet the summoning order and the consequent steps if any taken by the trial court pursuant to the same are liable to be quashed qua the appellant herein and are thus quashed. Appeal allowed.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is necessary before taking cognizance of offences allegedly committed by a public servant while acting in the discharge of official duty.Whether the filing of a counter affidavit by a public servant in her official capacity before a tribunal without the complainant's knowledge or consent constitutes an offence outside the scope of official duty.Whether the concept of "deemed sanction" exists under Section 197 CrPC when the competent authority fails to grant or deny sanction within the stipulated time.Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the chargesheet and summoning order in the absence of valid sanction for prosecution.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Court held that the appellant was acting in the discharge of her official duty as the Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) when filing the counter affidavit, and therefore, prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was a condition precedent to taking cognizance of offences alleged against her.The Court found no criminal intent in the appellant's actions and noted that the appellant later filed an application to amend the counter affidavit respecting the complainant's wish to represent herself, indicating no wrongful representation.The Court ruled that Section 197 CrPC does not envisage the concept of "deemed sanction" and that absence of sanction within the stipulated period cannot be construed as grant of sanction; reliance on judgments suggesting "deemed sanction" was misplaced as those judgments did not deal with Section 197 CrPC.The Court concluded that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without valid sanction and that the High Court erred in not quashing the chargesheet and summoning order given the express denial of sanction by the competent authority, thereby vitiating the initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellant.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the legal framework of Section 197 CrPC, which mandates prior sanction from the competent authority before prosecuting a public servant for offences alleged to have been committed while acting in the discharge of official duty.The Court relied on precedents including Gurmeet Kaur vs. Devender Gupta and Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy, which emphasize protection of public servants from unjustified prosecution and clarify that the question of sanction depends on whether the act was connected to official duty.The Court distinguished the present case from others cited by the State and complainant, holding that the judgments relied upon did not establish a statutory basis for "deemed sanction" under Section 197 CrPC.The Court emphasized that the question of whether the appellant acted in official capacity is a question of fact, which was not seriously contested, and that the absence of sanction vitiates the cognizance and subsequent proceedings.The Court noted that the competent authority (BIS) expressly denied sanction within the stipulated period, reinforcing the necessity to quash the proceedings.