Prior sanction for prosecuting police officials is mandated by law to protect them from frivolous claims, necessitating careful adherence to statutory procedures.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. K.S. Harish, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

3. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in batch of three petitions [W.P.No.24171/2024, W.P.No.28337/2024 and W.P.No.24169/2024].

4. The present appeal is confined to the impugned order insofar as it relates to W.P.No.24169/2024. The appellant had filed the said petition impugning an endorsement dated 30.08.2024, whereby the appellant's request for sanction of prosecution with respect of three police officials was denied. The contents of the endorsement as translated in english, read as under:

"In connection with the above matter, the petitions referred to have been examined. It is not reasonable to seek the sanction of prosecution from the government before filing a private complaint in the court and without the direction of the esteemed court. Therefore, it is of the opinion that granting sanction of prosecution at this stage is not appropriate and hereby informs that your petition seeking sanction of prosecution has been rejected."

5. A plain reading of the said endorsement indicates that the appellant's request has been denied on the ground that the appellant had sought sanction prior to filing a private complaint and without any directions being issued by the Court in this regard.

6. It is the appellant's case that the reasons as articulated in the endorsement are not sustainable in law as there is no principle, which requires that a complaint against the police officials be registered and an order be obtained by the concerned Court.

7. The learned Single Judge had rejected the petition on the ground that unless the constitutional courts find that there is a clear case of malicious prosecution, no such proceedings could be lodged. The relevant extract of the reasons for rejecting the appellant's challenge to the impugned endorsement is reproduced below:

"The endorsement indicates that prior to registration of the crime and after registration of the crime, unless there is a direction from the Court, sanction cannot be granted. Though the endorsement is not happily worded, the petitioner is now wanting to seek prosecution against 3 persons, who according to him, were the reason for registration of the crime. One of whom is the Assistant commissioner of Police and the other Deputy Commissioner of Police. It is ununderstandable as to how the Assistant Commissioner of Police or the Deputy Commissioner of Police can be equated to the officer in-charge of the police station one Sri Ashwath Gowda. As observed hereinabove, even the officer-in-charge of the police station has performed his duty. Performance of duty, unless the constitutional Courts would find that it was a clear case of malicious prosecution, the Court is of the considered view that there cannot be proceedings for malicious prosecution. Therefore, the petition lacking in merit and for the manifold reasons rendered in the companion petition stands rejected."

8. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that he does not seek to prosecute the police officials under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [the P&C Act]. But seeks the sanction under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 [the KP Act].

9. The appellant also states that he has filed a suit against the concerned police officials, but cannot proceed without the said sanction.

10. We may note the observations made by the Supreme Court in G.C. Manjunath and others v. Seetaram :(2025) 5 SCC 390, which was rendered in the context of Section 170 of the KP Act. In the said decision, the Court has observed as un