Sanction For Prosecution U/S 197 CrPC Can Be Postponed To Later Stage Unless Acts Complained Of Intricately Connected To Official Function: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no legal bar to always postpone the requirement of sanction at a later stage of proceedings. If the acts complained of have a connection with the official duty, provision of Section 197 CrPC is attracted for obtaining sanction immediately at the time of taking cognizance.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed:

"….there is no doubt that a question of sanction can arise at any stage of proceedings but the same gets attracted immediately at the time of taking cognizance, if the facts of the case or act of the accused, are so intricately connected to his official function that it cannot be segregated. There is no legal bar to always postpone the requirement of sanction at a later stage...If Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is construed too narrowly it can never be applied, to any of the acts committed by a public servant as no public servant can be allowed to commit an offence in the discharge of his official duty. The entire legislative intent would be frustrated."

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the application filed by the petitioner for his discharge on the ground of not obtaining sanction under Section 197 of CrPC was rejected.

A complaint was filed against the petitioner (then Tehsildar) and three other government officers under Sections 218, 466, 120B and 34 of IPC and sec. 13(i)(c) and 13(d)(ii) of the PC Act, 1988.

According to the complaint, the petitioner and other accused persons had prepared an incorrect map intentionally and dishonestly only to cause damage to the complainant's property.

The MM vide impugned order rejected the application submitted by the petitioner for his discharge on the ground that the sanction under Section 197 CrPC is only required when the offence is purported to have been done by the accused is in the discharge of his official duties.

The High Court observed that in cases where, at an initial stage, the Court may not find it necessary to require sanction, but if at a later stage finds that the act of the public servant was in discharge of his official duty, appropriate directions for obtaining sanction can be given.

"However, if the Court at the initial stage itself is satisfied that an act alleged against an accused is in the discharge of his official function, the requirement of sanction would get attracted immediately. There has to be a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty," the Court added.

It was also observed that for invoking protection under Section 197, the acts of the accused, complained of, must be such that the same cannot be separated from the discharge of official duty. The Court added that the claim of the accused should not be pretended or fanciful.

"If the act has a reasonable relation to the duty of the accused, the question of sanction may arise immediately. The use of the expression, 'official duty' implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in the course of his service and that it should have been in the discharge of his duty. The Section does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty," the Court said.

It added, "The protection given under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them, while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants. No straight jacket formula can be devised with respect to the stage of applicability of sanction. However, the same would depend on the facts of each case."

On the facts of the case, the Court opined that there were no allegations specifically against the petitioner so as to "isolate" him from the other officials discharging their official duty. The facts and the offence alleged against the petitioner is altogether different, the Court said.

Thus the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the MM and rejected the complaint for want of sanction with liberty to proceed afresh after obtaining sanction from the competent authority.

Case Title: SHRI B K PARCHURE v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 811

Click Here To Read Order