Sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC is not applicable when a public servant's alleged offenses do not relate to their official duties.

ORDER :

The petitioner/accused No.21 is before this Court calling in question order dated 08-11-2022 passed by the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Special C.C.No.565 of 2021 rejecting an application filed seeking petitioner’s discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC in a crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201, 143, 147, 148 r/w 149 of the IPC.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner is a Government servant. The genesis of him getting embroiled in the impugned crime is based upon a complaint which becomes a crime in Crime No.135 of 2016. A complaint comes to be registered by Smt. Mallavva Goudar, wife of Yogish Goudar, a member of the Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad. It was the case of the complainant that her husband was two days prior to the incident received an anonymous letter threatening that he would be murdered just like his elder brother late Uday Goudar. The narration in the complaint is that her husband had around 25 criminal cases pending against him and was also listed as a rowdy in the Police Stations of Dharwad and Navalgund. On 15-06-2016 her husband as a routine tries to enter the Gym at which point in time, some unknown person assault him with deadly weapons and commit his murder. On the said incident the complaint comes to be registered on 15-06-2016 which becomes a crime in Crime No.135 of 2016 against unknown persons for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The Police then conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against six accused for offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 120B, 302, 201 r/w 149 of the IPC. The accused were alleged of having known the deceased and being politically connected with the rival parties. Accused No.1 had entered into certain agreements with one Todkar for purchase of lands measuring 25 acres 8 guntas. It is the allegation that the said lands were in the custody of the deceased and as such, he had threatened accused No.1 that in the event he would purchase the said lands he would kill accused No.1. It is, therefore what was projected was a murder on account of a property dispute.

3. On the police filing charge sheet observing that it was a property dispute between the deceased and the accused, one Tungamma and brother of the deceased Sri. Gurunath Gouda knocked at the doors of this Court in Writ Petition No.58183-58184 of 2017 seeking a mandamus directing investigation to be transferred to the hands of the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’ for short). This comes to be rejected by a co-ordinate Bench in terms of its order dated 01-03-2019. This was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court rejected the special leave petition. Thus ended the request for transfer of matter to the hands of the CBI by the family of the deceased.

4. Government of Karnataka on 06-09-2019 accords approval for bringing in the CBI under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for conduct of further investigation in Crime No.135 of 2016. The CBI then registers a separate FIR for same offences afore-quoted in R.C.17(S)/2019 and begins conduct of investigation. The CBI files three supplementary charge sheets under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, two of which dragged the MLA Sri. Vinay Kulkarni as accused No.15 and the third of which dragged the petitioner into the web of crime as accused No.21. After the petitioner comes in