Amod Kumar Kanth vs Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy and Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

20 April 2023

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 1359 of 2017

Result

Allowed

Bench

K.M. Joseph, B.V. Nagarathna, Aravind Kumar

Citation

[2023] 6 S.C.R. 669 : 2023 INSC 397

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 –Ambit of – Uphaar Tragedy case – Closure report filed by the CBI against the appellant was rejected by the Magistrate,who instead took cognizance on the protest petition filed by the first respondent and issued summons against the appellant – Cognizance was taken for offences u/ss.304A, 337, 338, IPC and u/s.14, Cinematograph Act r/w the Rules – Appellant filed petition u/s.482, CrPC challenging the order issuing summons – Dismissed – On appeal, held: When considering the question of cognizance being taken in the absence of sanction and thereby s.197 being flouted it is not to be conflated and thereby confused with the question as to whether an offence has been committed – The salutary purpose behind s.197 is protection being accorded to public servants – The most important question which must be posed and answered by the Court when dealing with the argument that sanction is not forthcoming is whether the officer was acting in the exercise of his official duties – Even an officer who acts in the purported exercise of his official power is given the protection u/s.197– In the present case, having regard to the admitted facts, it cannot be said that the appellant was not acting in the discharge of his official functions –The subtle and nuanced distinction between the question as to whether the offence has been committed and if an offence has been committed, whether a sanction is required for prosecuting a public servant who is alleged to have committed the same, must not be lost sight of – Magistrate and the High Court overlooked this distinction – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance against the appellant contrary to the demands of s.197 –Impugned order set aside –Proceedings challenged in s.482 stand quashed–Penal Code, 1860– ss.304A, 337, 338 – Cinematograph Act, 1952 – s.14.

D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020) 7 SCC

695 : [2020] 6 SCR 453; Indra Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2021) 8 SCC 768; State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2023) 1 SCC 289; Abdul Wahab Ansari v. State of Bihar, (2000) 8 SCC

500 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 747; Surinderjit Singh Mand v. State of Punjab, (2016) 8 SCC 722 : [2016] 5 SCR 653; Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 12 SCC

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered : JUDGMENT (1) By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for brevity). The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting the closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as ‘CBI’ for short) which was filed against the appellant. The closure report filed by the CBI was not acc

View Subscription Plans →