S. 197 CrPC | Sanction For Prosecution Needed When Alleged Offence Was Connected To Discharge Of Official Duties : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently quashed a criminal case and summoning order against a District Town Planner, ruling that no prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was obtained for prosecuting her demolition actions, which were part of her official duties carried out under senior's instructions.

“we observe that the first respondent herein ought to have sought sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC in the instant case. The same, not having been done vitiated the initiation of the criminal proceeding against the appellant herein. Consequently, the summoning order and the consequent steps taken by the Trial Court pursuant to the said summoning order are liable to be quashed and are thus quashed. Insofar as the very initiation of the complaint is concerned, we observe that since there was no prior order of sanction passed under Section 197 of the CrPC, the initiation of the complaint itself, is non-est.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh heard the criminal appeal filed by one Gurmeet Kaur, a District Town Planner (as then she was) against the High Court's refusal to quash the criminal case and summoning order issued against her for carrying out demolition exercise of a private college based on the instructions of the superior officials.

The Appellant contended that the entire proceedings initiated against her were vitiated as no prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was taken before prosecuting her. She argued that the demolition exercise carried out by her on the instructions of the senior was part of her 'official duties' requiring the prosecution to seek prior sanction before prosecuting her.

The question that appeared for the Court's consideration was whether the demolition exercise carried out by the appellant was within its official duties qualifying the need of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

Answering in affirmation, the judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna observed that the demolition exercise carried out by the Appellant had a direct and reasonable connection with her official duties. Therefore, the need for prior sanction was mandatory.

On the aspect of how to determine whether the offending act committed by the accused-public servant falls within the official duties, the Court referred to former CJI T.S.Thakur's concurring judgment in Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh (2013) where it was observed that "the test of the direct and reasonable connection between the official duty of the accused and the acts allegedly committed by them is, therefore, the true test to be applied while deciding whether the protection of Section 197 of the CrPC is available to a public servant accused of the commission of an offence."

Various authorities were cited by the Respondent contending that the appellant's act of carrying out the demolition work was not part of her official duties and, therefore not require sanction to prosecute her, however, the Court dismissed their claim noting that the authorities cited by them have no applicability with the facts of the present case.

“We find that this is not a case where the appellant herein carried out the demolition dehors any legal backing or basis; neither was the said act of carrying out of the demolition outside the scope of her authority as the District Town Planner in the Enforcement Division. The appellant was carrying out the orders of the superior officers. There is a correlation between the act of demolition and the discharge of official duty. The demolition was carried out during the course of performance of appellant's official duties.”, the court observed.

Noting that no previous sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. was taken before prosecuting the appellant, therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal case and summoning order against the appellant.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sameer Rohtagi, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv. Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv.

Case Title: GURMEET KAUR VERSUS DEVENDER GUPTA & ANOTHER

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 983

Click here to read/download the judgment