Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1177

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Gurmeet Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Devender Gupta and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 4825-4826 of 2024 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 9138-9139 of 2017)
Decided On : 26-11-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sameer Rohtagi, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv. Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv.

The absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. invalidates criminal proceedings against public servants acting within the scope of their official duties.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 197 - Public servant - Requirement of sanction for prosecution - Appellant, a District Town Planner, carried out demolition under authority - No sanction obtained prior to complaint initiation - Criminal proceedings quashed for lack of sanction. (Paras 32, 33)

(B) Public Servants - Protection from prosecution - Sanction under Section 197 is mandatory to shield bona fide actions during official duties - Absence of sanction renders proceedings invalid. (Paras 10, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of unlawful demolition of a college building, allegedly due to non-payment of bribe, without proper sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the quashing petition, leading to this appeal.

Findings of Court:
The appellant acted within her authority, and the absence of sanction vitiated the criminal proceedings against her.

Issues: Whether the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. invalidates the criminal complaint against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the demolition was within the scope of the appellant's official duties, and thus, the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. invalidated the proceedings.

Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2017 passed in CRM-M-4549-2015 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dismissing the petition as not maintainable; and order dated 01.11.2017 passed in application bearing CRM No. 33535 of 2017 declining to recall the order dated 18.09.2017, the appellant is before this Court.

3. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant herein filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking quashing of Complaint No. 1383 dated 13.03.2010/11.11.2011 titled Devender Gupta vs. Director, Town and Country Planning and Others along with the proceedings thereof. The said complaint was filed by Devender Gupta under Sections 323, 452, 506, 427, 384, 440, 166, 148, 149 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) along with all consequential proceedings and the impugned order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gurgaon summoning the appellant herein and two others for the aforesaid offences were assailed before the High Court.

4. The original complaint filed by Devender Gupta-first respondent herein under various provisions of the IPC referred to above against the present appellant, who was at the relevant time, the District Town Planner (Enforcement) and twelve others was that on 24.09.2006, the appellant had forcibly entered Anupama College of Engineering and Anupama Institute of Management, both situated at Gurgaon District of which the first respondent was the Chairman, in her official jeep along with some other officials and created chaos and had taken away the college telephone No. 2241615 forcibly. That the college had resisted initially but the appellant refused to oblige them; a complaint was lodged before the Bilaspur Police Post regarding the said incident but no action was taken. Thereafter, the complainant met the appellant herein on 10.11.2006 along with his advocate but the appellant had asked for the building map/plan and other documents and the first respondent-complainant had produced the said documents. However, one of the accused, Manipal demanded Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs Only) as an illegal gratification but the first respondent- complainant refused to oblige the same. Consequently, on 05.02.2007 at about 9.45 A.M. the appellant forcibly entered the college premises along with sufficient number of police personnel with heavy machinery and equipment for the purpose of demolition and after vacating the campus of the staff and students, the demolition took place. The said action of the appellant was with a mala fide intention owing to non-payment of the bribe made previously; that an FIR was registered on the instructions of accused No. 5 and the same was found to be false.

Further, Writ Petition (C) No. 16184/2001 had also been filed in which the High Court had appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the college campus and he had submitted his report on 18.10.2007 stating that there was an existing building which was constructed prior to the year 2004 which was much before the notification being issued under the provisions of The Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (“the Act” for the sake of brevity). Therefore, the Notification issued under the said Act was not applicable to the subject building inasmuch as its construction was prior to 05.08.2005.

5. The aforesaid complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. as a private complaint and on preliminary evidence and recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses namely CW-1 and CW-2 and documentary evidence at Ex.PA to PZ, Ex. PAA to Ex.PDD. the Trial Court issued a summoning order on 20.11.2014 against the present appellant and two others only under Sections 323, 452, 506, 427, 384, 440, 166