2024 Supreme(SC) 1188

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Om Prakash Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 5267-5268 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 8239-8240 of 2018)
Decided On : 13-12-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Sanction for prosecution of public servant – The provision must not be abused by public servants to camouflage commission of a crime under supposed colour of public office – While deciding issue of sanction, it is not necessary for Court to confine itself to allegations made in complaint.
(2) It can be no part of official duty of a public official to lodge a bogus case and fabricate evidence or documents in connection with the same.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 197 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 218] – Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Sine qua non for applicability of this section is that offence charged, be it one of commission or omission, must be committed by public servant either in his official capacity or under colour of office held by him such that there is direct or reasonable connection between the act and official duty – A public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities in discharge of his duty and to that extent, the section must be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner – However, once it is established that act or omission was done by public servant while discharging his duty, then scope of it being “official” should be interpreted such that objective of the section is advanced in favour of public servant – Scope can be widened further by also extending protection to those acts or omissions which are done in “purported” exercise of “official” duty i.e., under colour of office, but not more – While there cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there exists reasonable connection between act done and official duty, one “safe and sure test” in this regard would be to consider if omission or neglect on part of public servant to commit act complained of could have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duty. (Paras 53, 54, 57 and 58)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 197 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 218] – Sanction for prosecution of public servant – It is not possible to carve out one universal rule that can be uniformly applied to multivarious facts and circumstances in context of which protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is sought for – Any attempt to lay down such a homogenous standard would create unnecessary rigidity as regards scope of application of this provision – It is essential that Court while considering question of applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C. truly applies its mind to factual situation before it – It is “quality” of the act that must be examined – Mere fact that opportunity to commit an offence is furnished by official position would not be enough to attract Section 197 Cr.P.C. – The provision must not be abused by public servants to camouflage commission of a crime under supposed colour of public office – While deciding issue of sanction, it is not necessary for Court to confine itself to allegations made in complaint – It can take into account all material on record available at the time when such a question is raised and falls for consideration of Court. (Paras 65, 66 and 74)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 201 and 120-B [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 191, 190, 109, 103(1), 238 and 61(2)] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Murder, attempt to murder, disappearance of evidence and conspiracy – Common object – Criminal proceedings quashed by High Court – When a police official is said to have lodged a false case, he cannot claim that sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required since it can be no part of official duty of a public official to lodge a bogus case and fabricate evidence or documents in connection with the same – Any act or offence committed by respondent no. 1 in present case can safely be said to have been outside scope of his official duty which obviates question of sanction for his prosecution – Impugned order passed by High Court is set aside – Trial Court directed to proceed with trial. (Paras 67, 74, 85 and 86)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 180] – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 145 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 148] – Statement given to police – Statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not constitute substantive evidence and can only be utilized for limited purpose of proving contradictions and/or omissions as envisaged under Section 145 of Evidence Act, 1872 – Statement given to police during investigation under Section 161 has limited applicability in a Court of Law. (Paras 77 and 78)

Facts of the case:

Vide impugned Judgment quashed proceedings of case registered for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 201 and 120-B respectively of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Findings of Court:

CJM, Firozabad had rightly taken cognizance of two charge-sheets vide its orders dated 24.11.2008 and 10.08.2009 respectively. High Court committed error in failing to consider this aspect while quashing proceedings in Case No. 67 of 2008 and 67A of 2009 respectively vide its impugned order.

Result : Appeals allowed.