Question Whether Sanction Is Required May Arise At Any Stage Of Proceeding: SC Summarises Legal Position On Section 197 CrPC
The Supreme Court in a Judgment, has summarised the legal position on Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) regarding the sanction.
The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which it allowed the Applications and quashed the proceedings arising out of a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 201, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra took note of the legal position as below –
(i) There might arise situations where the complaint or the police report may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty. However, the facts subsequently coming to light may establish the necessity for sanction. Therefore, the question whether sanction is required or not is one that may arise at any stage of the proceeding and it may reveal itself in the course of the progress of the case.
(ii) There may also be certain cases where it may not be possible to effectively decide the question of sanction without giving an opportunity to the defence to establish that what the public servant did, he did in the discharge of official duty. Therefore, it would be open to the accused to place the necessary materials on record during the trial to indicate the nature of his duty and to show that the acts complained of were so interrelated to his duty in order to obtain protection under Section 197 CrPC.
(iii) While deciding the issue of sanction, it is not necessary for the Court to confine itself to the allegations made in the complaint. It can take into account all the material on record available at the time when such a question is raised and falls for the consideration of the Court.
(iv) Courts must avoid the premature staying or quashing of criminal trials at the preliminary stage since such a measure may cause great damage to the evidence that may have to be adduced before the appropriate Trial Court.
Senior Advocate Ravindra Singh appeared on behalf of the Appellant while Senior Advocate R. Basant and AOR Nanita Sharma appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts -
In 2007, the Appellant lodged an FIR against the accused persons alleging that his brother who was a teacher, was killed and his brother’s son aged about 4.5 years was grievously injured by the said accused persons by indiscriminately firing with their handguns. The Appellant claimed that the incident was witnessed by him and several others. The mother of one of the accused, while alleging that the Appellant was trying to falsely implicate his son in the case of murder, moved an Application before the D.I.G., Firozabad, requesting that the investigation be transferred from the Dakshin Police Station to some other police station.
While the said accused had obtained a stay on his arrest from the High Court, the arrest of the other accused persons remained pending and the probe was going on. Thereafter, the investigation was transferred as requested by the accused’s mother. Other accused preferred Application before the Allahabad High Court, seeking to quash the proceedings. Resultantly, the High Court quashed the proceedings and being aggrieved, the Appellant was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “… it is not possible to carve out one universal rule that can be uniformly applied to the multivarious facts and circumstances in the context of which the protection under Section 197 CrPC is sought for. Any attempt to lay down such a homogenous standard would create unnecessary rigidity as regards the scope of application of this provision.”
The Court emphasised that, when a police official is said to have lodged a false case, he cannot claim that sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC was required since it can be no part of the official duty of a public official to lodge a bogus case and fabricate evidence or documents in connection with the same.
“On examining the quality of the act, it is evident that there exists no reasonable or rational nexus between such an act and the duties assigned to the public servant for the claim that it was done or purported to be done in the discharge of his official duty. The mere fact that an opportunity to register a false case was furnished by the official duty would certainly not be sufficient to apply Section 197 CrPC”, it added.
The Court further said that any act or offence committed by the Respondent in this case can safely be said to have been outside the scope of his official duty which obviates the question of sanction for his prosecution.
“… it is settled law that a statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC does not constitute substantive evidence and can only be utilized for the limited purpose of proving contradictions and/or omissions as envisaged under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872”, it also observed.
The Court, therefore, concluded that in cases where there is a legitimate doubt as regards whether sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC is required or not, the progress of the trial must not be hampered or unnecessarily delayed.
Accordingly, the Apex disposed of the Appeals, set aside the Order of the High Court, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial within one year.
Cause Title- Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 979)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Ravindra Singh, AOR Syed Mehdi Imam, Advocates Raman Yadav, Ruchi Mandal, Akriti Chaturvedi, Priyam Kaushik, and R. S. Yadav.
Respondents: Senior Advocate R. Basan, AORs Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Ujjwal Singh, Nanita Sharma, Advocates Mayank Sapre, Vivek Sharma, Deepanshu Rana, and Harshit Shishodia.
