Read Judgment: https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/pgse/
Criminal Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197, CrPC – Section 170, Karnataka Police Act – Police Officers – Acts in Excess of Official Duty.
Held
Prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act is mandatory for prosecuting police officers when alleged acts, though excessive, are reasonably connected to the discharge of official duties. Allegations of assault, wrongful confinement, and fabricating cases against the complainant during investigation of criminal cases were deemed to have a reasonable nexus to official duties, necessitating sanction. Absence of sanction vitiated proceedings. Considering the accused’s retirement and advanced age, proceedings were quashed.
D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695 and Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 849 followed.
Appeal allowed; High Court’s order set aside.
Case Citation: LL 2025 (4) SC 23 : 2025 INSC 439
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J.; Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
Date of Judgment: April 3, 2025
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1759 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6053 of 2021)
Parties
- Appellants: G.C. Manjunath & Others (Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 5, police officers)
- Respondent: Seetaram (Complainant)
Facts
The respondent, Seetaram, alleged that police officers (accused Nos. 1 to 5) engaged in retaliatory actions against him due to his prosecution of certain police officers for illegal activities. The accusations included:
- On April 10, 1999, accused Nos. 2, 3, and 5 trespassed into Seetaram’s house, assaulted him, and tortured him at Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station.
- On October 27, 1999, accused Nos. 3 to 5 assaulted Seetaram, stripped him, and confiscated his belongings, causing grievous injuries (e.g., dislodged tooth).
- False cases were registered against Seetaram (Crime Nos. 137, 138, and 448 of 1999), in which he was acquitted.
- Accused No. 6 published defamatory photographs of Seetaram in Bruna Weekly Magazine in 2001. Seetaram filed a private complaint in 2007, alleging offences under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 326, 358, 500, 501, 502, and 506(b) read with Section 34. The VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, took cognisance and issued summons against accused Nos. 1 to 5 in 2016. The High Court of Karnataka upheld this order in 2021, dismissing the appellants’ plea for quashing the proceedings, primarily on the ground that no prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC or Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act was required.
Procedural History
- Magistrate Court (2016): Took cognisance of offences under IPC Sections 326, 358, 500, 501, 502, and 506(b) read with Section 34 against accused Nos. 1 to 5 and issued summons.
- Sessions Court (2020): Dismissed the revision petition filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5.
- High Court (2021): Upheld the lower court orders, ruling that prior sanction was not necessary as the alleged acts exceeded official duties.
- Supreme Court: Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 5 appealed. During proceedings, accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4 passed away, leaving the appeal concerning only accused Nos. 2 and 5.
Issues
- Whether the Magistrate was justified in taking cognisance of the offences without prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act.
- Whether the alleged acts by the accused were reasonably connected to their official duties, thus requiring prior sanction.
Arguments
- Appellants: Argued that the complaint was a retaliatory measure filed with inordinate delay (2007 for incidents from 1999-2000). They contended that prior sanction was mandatory under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act, as the alleged acts were performed “under colour or in excess of” their official duties. They relied on D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain and Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur v. State of Mysore.
- Respondent: Argued that the accused’s acts (assault, stripping, and fabricating cases) were not connected to official duties and caused grievous injuries, as evidenced by medical reports. The complainant had sought sanction from 2002 to 2006 without success. He relied on Bakhshish Singh Brar v. Gurmej Kaur, asserting that sanction was not required for acts exceeding official duties.
Holding
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 2 and 5. The Court held:
- The alleged acts, though grave, were reasonably connected to the accused’s official duties (investigation of criminal cases against the complainant, a declared rowdy sheeter).
- Prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act was mandatory, as the acts were performed “under colour of, or in excess of,” official duties.
- The absence of sanction vitiated the initiation of proceedings.
- Given the age and retirement of accused Nos. 2 and 5 (71 and 64 years old, retired in 2015 and 2020), prolonging prosecution served no purpose.
Reasoning
- Sanction Requirement: Sections 197 of the CrPC and 170 of the Police Act protect public servants from prosecution for acts reasonably connected to official duties, even if in excess of authority. The Court cited D. Devaraja and Virupaxappa, emphasizing that a reasonable nexus between the act and official duty triggers the sanction requirement.
- Nexus to Official Duties: The accused’s actions (arrest, investigation, and alleged excesses) arose during the investigation of criminal cases against the complainant. This nexus entitled them to statutory protection.
- Judicial Precedents: The Court distinguished Bakhshish Singh and relied on B. Saha v. M.S. Kochar and Amod Kumar Kanth v. Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy to clarify that acts with a reasonable connection to official duties require sanction, regardless of excessiveness.
- Delay and Context: The Court noted the complainant’s history as a rowdy sheeter and the timing of the complaint post-acquittal, suggesting a possible retaliatory motive. The advanced age and retirement of the accused further justified quashing the proceedings.
Disposition
- The High Court’s order dated March 17, 2021, was set aside.
- The summoning order dated May 7, 2016, and the Sessions Court’s order dated June 11, 2020, were quashed.
- Criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 2 and 5 were quashed.
Significance
This case reinforces the protective scope of Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, emphasizing that prior sanction is mandatory for prosecuting public servants when alleged acts are reasonably connected to official duties, even if excessive. It underscores the balance between protecting public servants from vexatious litigation and ensuring accountability for egregious misconduct.