Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
G.C. Manjunath & Others – Appellants
Versus
Seetaram – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1759 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6053 of 2021)
Decided On : 03-04-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 197 – Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Protective mantle of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not absolute – It does not extend to acts that are manifestly beyond scope of official duty or wholly unconnected thereto – Acts bereft of any reasonable nexus to official functions fall outside ambit of this safeguard and do not attract bar imposed under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. – It is quality of act that is important and if it falls within scope and range of his official duties, protection contemplated under Section 197 Cr.P.C. will be attracted – While Section 197 of Cr.P.C. does not explicitly mention requirement of good faith, such a condition is implied and is expressly included in several other statutes that offer protection to public servants from civil and criminal liability. (Paras 30, 32 and 33)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 197 and 482 read with Section 170 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 326, 358, 500, 501,502, 506 (b) read with Section 34 – House trespass and torture by Police officials – Summoning order – If act is wholly unconnected or manifestly devoid of any nexus to official functions of public servant, requirement of sanction is obviated – Conversely, where there exists even reasonable link between act complained of and official duties of public servant, protective umbrella of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and Section 170 of Police Act is attracted – In such cases, prior sanction assumes character of a sine qua non, regardless of whether public servant exceeded scope of authority or acted improperly while discharging his duty – In case at hand, allegations levelled against accused persons are grave in nature – However, transgression or overstepping of authority does not, by itself, suffice to displace statutory safeguard of requiring prior government sanction before prosecuting public servant concerned – Actions attributed to accused persons emanate from discharge of their official duties, specifically in connection with investigation of criminal cases pending against complainant who was declared a rowdy sheeter by Deputy Commissioner of Police – Mere excess or overreach in performance of official duty does not, by itself, disentitle a public servant from statutory protection mandated by law – Safeguard of obtaining prior sanction from competent authority, as envisaged under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and Section 170 of Police Act, cannot be rendered nugatory merely because acts alleged may have exceeded the strict bounds of official duty – Absence of necessary sanction vitiates very initiation of criminal proceedings against accused persons – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42)
Facts of the case:
Being aggrieved by the order passed by High Court of Karnataka dated 17.03.2021 in Criminal Petition No.4512 of 2020 in refusing to quash the order dated 11.06.2020 passed by City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City affirming the summoning order dated 07.05.2016 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru against the accused persons under Sections 326, 358, 500, 501,502, 506 (b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, appellants/accused Nos.2, 3, and 5 have preferred this appeal.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order dated 17.03.2021 passed by High Court in Criminal Petition No.4512 of 2020, preferred under Section 482 of CrPC is hereby set aside. Consequently, Criminal Petition No.4512 of 2020 stands allowed. As a result, summoning order dated 07.05.2016 passed by VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru against accused Nos.2 and 5, as well as order dated 11.06.2020 passed by City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in affirming same are hereby quashed.
Result : Appeal and Criminal Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 17.03.2021 in Criminal Petition No.4512 of 2020 in refusing to quash the order dated 11.06.2020 passed by the learned LXI City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City affirming the summoning order dated 07.05.2016 passed by the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru against the accused persons under Sections 326, 358, 500, 501,502, 506 (b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”), the appellants/accused Nos.2, 3, and 5 have preferred this appeal.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent herein has been prosecuting certain police officers for their illegal activities. Due to this, the complainant alleged that some police officers had engaged accused Nos.1 to 5, who were also police officers, to take revenge against him. Accused Nos.1 to 5 were serving at the Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, and accused No.6 is the daughter of the proprietor of Bruna Weekly Magazine.
4. The complainant stated that in order to seek revenge, accused Nos.1 to 5 lodged false complaints against the complainant and registered fabricated cases. They also threatened him with dire consequences. On 10.04.1999, at about 10:30 p.m., accused Nos.2, 3, and 5 trespassed into his house, dragged him out, and forcibly took him to the Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station. There, the accused Nos.1 to 5 allegedly assaulted him after stripping him of his clothes and continued to torture him throughout the night.
5. On 11.04.1999, accused Nos.2, 3, and 5 allegedly procured a slate, forced the complainant to hold it with his name written on it, and accused No. 6 took his photograph at that time. Subsequently, the complainant was produced before the Magistrate after registering false cases in Crime Nos.137 and 138 of 1999. The complainant showed his injuries to the learned Magistrate, who referred him to a hospital. He was later released and eventually acquitted in the above cases.
6. It was further averred that on 27.10.1999, at about 9:45 p.m., accused Nos.3 to 5 stopped the complainant while he was riding his scooter. They slapped him, engaged an autorickshaw, and took him to the Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station. Accused No.1 was present at the station and abused the complainant in filthy language, demanding that he should withdraw the case filed by him. It was further alleged that accused No.1 then instructed accused No.3 to take possession of the complainant’s belongings. Accused No.3 removed his gold chain, wristwatch, purse, spectacles, and Rs.26,000/- in cash, wrapped them in a handkerchief, and handed over the same to accused No.1. Thereafter, they stripped the complainant of his clothes and assaulted him throughout the night using a lathi and an iron rod causing dislodgement of his tooth leading to profuse bleeding.
7. The complainant further stated that the accused persons continued to torture the complainant and later produced him before the Magistrate, registering a false case under Crime No.448 of 1999 for the offences under Section 392 of the IPC. The complainant reported the ill-treatment to the learned Magistrate, who directed the jail authorities to provide him with medical treatment. He was released from custody and sought treatment at Victoria Hospital on 04.11.1999.
8. Subsequently, accused No.6, with the intent to defame and ruin the complainant’s life, published the illegally taken photographs along with defamatory slogans in the Bruna Weekly Magazine on 25.01.2001, 10.09.2001, and 15.09.2001. Accused No.6 also filed a case against the complainant in Crime No.146 of 2005. The complainant alleged that accused Nos.1 to 6 have continuously threatened him, causing him mental agony, and have even threatened to kill him if he does not withdraw the complaints filed against them.
9. Therefore, the complainant approached the Court of learned VII Additional Chief Metr
Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Any action undertaken by a public officer, even if in excess of authority vested in them or overstepping confines of their official duty, would nonetheles....
Protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. applies to public servants for acts done in discharge of official duties, barring prosecution without prior sanction.
Public servants are protected under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. from prosecution for acts done in discharge of official duties, requiring prior sanction for prosecution even if the acts involve excess....
Point of Law : Alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their official duty - Their official duty is not to fabr....
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is necessary for prosecuting public servants for acts connected to their official duties, even if those acts exceed their official authority.
Prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is mandatory to prosecute public servants for actions within their official duties, protecting them from vexatious allegations.
Sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory for prosecuting public servants for actions taken while performing official duties, preventing misuse of legal proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
