Shadakshari vs State of Karnataka & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

17 January 2024

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2024

Result

Allowed

Bench

Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan

Citation

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 429 : 2024 INSC 42

Acts & Sections

CrPC

Issue for consideration

Whether sanction u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. is required to prosecute respondent No. 2 who faces accusation amongst others of creating fake documents by misusing his official position as a Village Accountant, thus a public servant. The competent authority has declined to grant sanction to prosecute. High Court has held that in the absence of such sanction, respondent No. 2 cannot be prosecuted and consequently has quashed the complaint as well as the chargesheet, giving liberty to the appellant to assail denial of sanction to prosecute respondent No. 2 in an appropriate proceeding, if so advised.

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Sanction under – Appellant-complainant lodged an FIR alleging that respondent no.2 and another were irregularly creating documents of property in the name of dead person despite knowing the fact those were fake documents – The High Court observed that respondent no.2 was a public servant – The offence complained against him, as per prosecution, was committed while discharging his duties as a public servant – Sanction sought by the investigating officer was denied – Consequently, the High Court held that since sanction was refused, prosecution for criminal offence against public servant cannot continue – Propriety:

Held: It is settled that s.197 Cr.P.C. does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service – It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties – The question whether respondent No.2 was involved in fabricating official documents by misusing his official position as a public servant is a matter of trial – Certainly, a view can be taken that manufacturing of such documents or fabrication of records cannot be a part of the official duty of a public servant – If that be the position, the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety, more so when there are two other accused persons besides respondent No.2 – There is another aspect of the matter – Respondent No.2 had unsuccessfully challenged the complaint in an earlier proceeding u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. – Though liberty was granted by the High Court to respondent No.2 to challenge any adverse report if filed subsequent to the lodging of the complaint, instead of confining the challenge to the chargesheet, respondent No.2 also assailed the complaint as well which he could not have done – The High Court erred in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety. [Paras 23, 25] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 197 – Ambit, scope and effect of:

Held: The object of such sanction for prosecution is to protect a public servant discharging official duties and functions from undue harassment by initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings. [Para 19]

Judgment 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 19.12.2

View Subscription Plans →