The court held that creating fake documents by a public servant is not part of official duty, thus sanction under Section 197 is not required for prosecution.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 419, 420, 423, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 473 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 197 - Quashing of FIR and chargesheet - High Court quashed complaint against public servant for lack of sanction to prosecute - Court held that making fake documents is not part of official duty, thus sanction is not required - High Court's order set aside. (Paras 8, 16, 26)

(B) Public Servants - Protection under Section 197 - Not every act of a public servant is protected; only those acts done in discharge of official duty are covered - Fabrication of documents does not fall under this protection. (Paras 19, 23)

Facts of the case:
The appellant lodged a complaint alleging that the respondent, a Village Accountant, created fake documents for illegal gain, including a death certificate for a living person. The High Court quashed the FIR and chargesheet citing lack of sanction for prosecution.

Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in quashing the complaint and chargesheet; the act of creating fake documents is not protected under Section 197.

Issues: Whether sanction is required to prosecute a public servant for creating fake documents while discharging official duties?

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the act of creating fake documents is not part of the official duties of a public servant, thus sanction is not necessary for prosecution.

Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGEMENT

UJJAL BHUYAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Challenge made in this appeal is to the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.4998 of 2020 (Sri. Mallikarjuna Vs. State of Karnataka) quashing the complaint dated 19.12.2016 lodged by the appellant; the chargesheet in C.C. No.116 of 2018 including the order dated 28.03.2018 passed therein by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belur.

3. Facts lie within a very narrow compass. The appellant as the complainant lodged a first information report dated 19.12.2016 (referred to as ‘the complaint’ in the impugned order) alleging Digitally signed by ASHISH KONDLE Date: 2024.01.17 13:56:56 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified that respondent No.2 and another were irregularly creating documents of property in the name of dead person despite knowing the fact that those were fake documents, such as, death certificate, family tree of the original successor of land of the appellant etc. for illegal gain. The said first information was received and registered by Haleebedu Police Station, Belur as Crime No. 323/2016 under Sections 409, 419, 420, 423, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 473 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 149 and Section 34 thereof.

4. It may be mentioned that respondent No.2 is working as Village Accountant, Kirigdalu Circle in the district of Hassan, Karnataka State.

5. Respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) for quashing of the said FIR before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (‘High Court’ for short). The same was registered as Criminal Petition No.9580 of 2017. 5.1 The High Court in its order dated 05.01.2018 noted that the specific case of the appellant was that land admeasuring 1 acre 13 guntas in survey No.7/6 situated at Chattanahalli Village, Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District belonged to the appellant and his family members. The same was given to accused No.1 for the purpose of cultivation. Accused No.1 in collusion with revenue officials including accused No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) created lot of fake documents in favour of respondent No.1. High Court vide the order dated 05.01.2018 observed that there were specific and serious allegations against respondent No.2 even as to creation of death certificate of a living person. It was observed that a reading of the FIR made out a case for investigation and that it was too premature to interfere with such FIR. Adverting to the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, the High Court did not interfere though granted liberty to respondent No.2 to seek his legal remedy in the event any adverse report was made.

6. Sub Inspector of Police, Haleebedu Police Station, who was the investigating officer submitted final report under Section 173 of the Cr.PC in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belur on 20.03.2018 which was registered as chargesheet No.12/2018. The following persons have been named as accused in the chargesheet:

Accused No.1 - Ramegowda ii.

Accused No.2 - Mallikarjuna (respondent No.2) iii.

Accused No.3 - Manjunath Aras They have been charged under Sections 471, 468, 467, 465, 420, 409, 466 and 423 read with Section 34 of IPC. The chargesheet also mentions the names of thirty-one witnesses.

7. As per the chargesheet, the deceased husband of witness No.2 Somashekharappa had permitted his deceased younger brother Thumbegowda to use the subject land for cultivation about 40-50 years ago. After the death of Thumbegowda, his son i.e. accused No.1 was cultivating the subject land. During the year 1993, Somashekharappa died but accused No.1 in collusion with accused No. 2 (respondent No.2) created a fake certificate of death to the effect that Somashekharappa had died during the year 2010. In this fake document, father of the dece

Click Here to Read the rest of this document