Public servants are entitled to protection against frivolous or vexatious prosecutions for offenses allegedly committed while acting in the discharge of their official duty.

JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J. :---The petitioner is a Police Officer who was implicated by the first respondent by filing a criminal complaint dated 12th November, 1987 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Niphad. The Magistrate on perusal of the complaint and on examination of the complainant issued summons against the petitioner under sections 325, 323, 504,506, 341, 342, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint discloses that the petitioner was a Police Officer and he was performing his duty of checking the vehicles on the road and stopped the vehicle of the first respondent. The petitioner asked the first respondent the licence for verification and on scrutiny of the licence the petitioner demanded money from the first respondent. When the first respondent refused to give money, the petitioner has manhandled the first respondent and as a result the first respondent sustained a fracture injury on his left hand.

2. Aggrieved against the issuance of summons, the petitioner filed a criminal revision application being Criminal Application No. 14 of 1988 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Nashik. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik dismissed the revision application of the petitioner. It is in that circumstances the petitioner approached this Court for quashing the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

3. The Counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that the previous sanction as envisaged under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been obtained before the complaint was taken cognizance by the Magistrate. The second contention was that even though the alleged offence has taken place on 8-5-1987 at about 8.00 p.m. the complaint was filed in the month of November, 1987 beyond six months period as contemplated under section 161 of the Bombay Police Act. In reply to this contention the learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the sanction under section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is not necessary at this stage as the act complained of against the petitioner was not part of his official duty and he will not get any protection under section 197 Cr.P.C. In order to fortify his argument he has cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case (Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Mishra)1, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1661, and relied on the observations made by the Supreme Court in para 4 as under.

"The narrow and pedantic construction may render it otiose for it is no part of an official duty-and never can be to commit an offence. In our view, it is not the "duty" which requires examination so much as the "act" because the official act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. One must also guard against too wide a construction because in our constitutional set up the idea of legal equality or of universal subjection of all citizens to one law administered by the ordinary courts has been pushed to its utmost limits by enshrining equality before the law in our fundamental principles."

This decision, however, will not lend any support to the argument of the counsel for the first respondent. The very same decision has postulated the object to be achieved for enacting the section 197 of the Cr.P.C. The aforesaid decision has made it clear in paragraph 4 thus:-

"The object and purpose underlying this section is to afford protection to public servants against frivolous vexatious or false prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. The larger interest of efficiency of State administration demands that public servants should be free to perform their official duty fearlessly and undeterred by apprehension of their possible prosecution at the instance of private parties to whom annoyance or injury may have been caused by their legitimate acts done in the discharge of their o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document