Important point
In a case where the complaint is that the accused, a Police Officer had falsely implicated the complainant and his brother in order to teach them a lesson, the question whether the acts alleged were com­mitted and or whether the police official acted in ­discharge of his duties can only be examined during the course of trial.

Judgment

S.N. Variava, J.—Leave granted.

Heard parties.

2. This Appeal is against the judgment and order dated 25th April. 2001 by which the High Court has quashed an order dated 16th April, 1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur. By the said order the Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of a complaint under Sections 323/324/504 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the 1st Respondent.

3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

The Appellant made a complaint that the 1st Respondent, who is a Police Officer, had harassed, levelled false charges and involved the Appellant and his brother in a false case. In the complaint, it is recited that the 1st Res­pondent had falsely implicated the Appellant by stating as follows:

“You have earned a lot in Lalmatia but we have not been paid/served. You will be taught a lesson.”

4. The complaint also is that the 1st Respondent assaulted the Appellant and his brother at their house and thereafter at the Police Station. It is claimed, in the complaint, that the 1st Respondent brought an illegal weapon and cartridges, put them on the table at the Police Station and falsely alleged that these weapon and cartridges were recovered from the Appellant and his brother. It is claimed that when the Appellant and his brother protested, the 1st Respondent threatened that they would be shot by showing encounter.

5. On this complaint, the Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur by his order dated 16th April, 1998 found that a prima facie case has been made out and issued summons. The 1st Res­pondent filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in the High Court for quashing the order dated 16th April, 1998, inter alia, on the ground that sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been ­obtained. By the impugned judgment and ­order dated 25th April, 2001, the High Court has held that even if the facts narrated in the ­complaint are taken to be true, then also they would come within the purview of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been held that the 1st Respondent could only be said to have over acted in the discharge of his duties and thus could only be prosecuted after sanction is obtained from the appropriate ­authority.

6. The law on the subject is well settled. It has been held by this Court in the case of P.P. Unnikrishnan and another vs. Puttiyottil Alikutty and another, reported in 2000(8) SCC 131 that under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code no protection has been granted to the public servant if the act complained of is not in connection with the discharge of his duty or in excuse of his duty.

7. In the case of P.K. Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim reported in 2001(6) SCC 704, it has been held that the legislative mandate engrafted in sub-section (1) of Section 197 is a prohibition imposed by the statute from taking cognizance. It has been held that the offence alleged to have been committed must have something to do, or must be related in some manner, with the discharge of official duty. It has been held that the only point for determination is whether the act was committed in discharge of official duty. It has been held that there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. It has been held that for invoking protection under Section 197 of the Code, the acts of the accused, complained of, must be such that the same cannot be separated from the discharge of official duty, but if there was no reasonable connection between them and the performance of those duties, and the official status furnishes only the occasion or opportunity for the acts, then no sanction would be required. It has been held that if the case as put forth by the prosecution fails or the defence establishes that the act purported to be done is in discharge of duty, the proceedings will have to be dropped. It is held that the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Code can be raised any time after the cognizance; may be immediately ­a