The judgment established the need for a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty, and emphasized the protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to protect responsible public servants against vexatious criminal proceedings.

Headnote:
Sanction - Criminal Proceedings - Section 197 of Cr.P.C. - [FABRICATION OF DOCUMENTS] - [Sections 218/466/120-B/34 of IPC and Section 13(i)(c) and 13(d)(ii) of the PC Act, 1988] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and the requirement of obtaining sanction for prosecuting public servants. The judgment highlighted the need for a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty, and emphasized that the protection under Section 197 is to protect responsible public servants against vexatious criminal proceedings. The court also emphasized that the question of sanction can arise at any stage of proceedings but gets attracted immediately at the time of taking cognizance if the act of the accused is intricately connected to his official function. The judgment set aside the impugned order and rejected the complaint for want of sanction with liberty to proceed afresh after obtaining sanction from the competent authority.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner and other government officers for preparing an incorrect map to cause damage to the property of the complainant. The petitioner, a Tehsildar, sought discharge on the ground of not obtaining sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The court had twice held that the petitioner and other officials were performing their official duties, and no forgery was found in the original documents. The petitioner was summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 218/466 of IPC, and he filed an application for his discharge, which was rejected by the learned MM on the ground that the matter of whether the petitioner was acting under the due discharge of official duties or not is a matter of trial.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order passed by the learned MM suffered from non-application of mind and set it aside. The complaint of the respondent was rejected for want of sanction with liberty to proceed afresh after obtaining sanction from the competent authority. The petition was allowed to the extent indicated.
Issues: The pivotal issue was the applicability of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and the requirement of obtaining sanction for prosecuting public servants. The court also considered whether the act of the petitioner was intricately connected to his official function and whether the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the need for a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty, and highlighted that the question of sanction can arise at any stage of proceedings but gets attracted immediately at the time of taking cognizance if the act of the accused is intricately connected to his official function. The court also emphasized that the protection under Section 197 is to protect responsible public servants against vexatious criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the complaint of the respondent was rejected for want of sanction with liberty to proceed afresh after obtaining sanction from the competent authority. The petition was allowed to the extent indicated.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeks quashment of the order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the Court of learned MM-06(C)/Delhi in CC No. 65/1C, whereby, the application filed by the present petitioner for his discharge on the ground of not obtaining sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/complainant filed the complaint against the petitioner (the then Tehsildar) and three other government officers under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 218/466/120-B/34 of IPC and Section 13(i)(c) and 13(d)(ii) of the PC Act, 1988. According to respondent No.2/complainant (hereinafter referred as 'complainant'), the present petitioner and other accused persons have prepared an incorrect map intentionally and dishonestly only to cause damage to the property of the complainant with respect to Khasra No. 315. On the basis of the fabricated documents, i.e., an incorrect map, the property of the petitioner was described to be under encroachment. The respondent No. 2/complainant alongwith his complaint also filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In pursuance to the directions issued by the learned MM on 13.12.2005, Action Taken Report was submitted by the concerned Police Station on 21.12.2005 stating therein that no forgery or change in the original documents was found, therefore, no cognizable offence was made out. On 01.06.2006, the learned MM noted that on the basis of the police record, facts and circumstances of the case, it was not appropriate to direct the registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. However, the Court directed the complainant to prove his [3] complaint while leading evidence. Respondent No. 2/complainant challenged the said order before the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 13/2006 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 16.10.2006 set aside the said order and directed the trial court to decide the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. afresh after hearing the complainant. On 01.09.2007, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate after hearing respondent No. 2/complainant passed an order rejecting the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, however, took cognizance of the offence and fixed the matter for pre-summoning the complainant's evidence. Thereafter, the evidence of seven witnesses produced by the complainant including himself was recorded as pre-charge evidence. On 15.03.2010, the learned ACMM directed for the summoning of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 218/466 of IPC. However, he did not find any material to summon the other accused made in the complaint.

3. The petitioner had approached this Court against the order of summoning in CRL.M.C. 1774/2010. This Court vide order dated 10.07.2012, allowed the petitioner to withdraw his petition with liberty to raise the point of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court and to invite its decision on the said issue at the first instance. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for his discharge. The learned MM vide impugned order dated 28.07.2014 rejected the application, so submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is only required when the offence is purported to have been done by the accused while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. According to the impugned order, whether the petitioner was acting under the due discharge of [4] official duties or not is a matter of trial which cannot be decided at the stage of issuing summon, as the same requires leading of evidence from both the sides.

4. Shri Pramod Dubey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Nishi Ranjan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and improper and the same is passed in ignorance of the settled legal pos