Bank Officials Not Entitled To S.197 CrPC Protection Despite Being 'Public Servants' Under RPC: J&K&L High Court

The Court clarified that Section 197 CrPC specifically extends protection only to those public servants who are not removable from office except by or with the sanction of the Government, and bank employees, being removable without such sanction, cannot invoke it as a shield against prosecution for offences under the IPC or RPC.

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 561-A of the J&K CrPC (akin to Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS) by two bank officials – a Branch Manager and a Zonal Head of the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. – seeking quashing of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, whereby process was issued against them for offences under Sections 420, 504 and 506 RPC on a private complaint alleging that they had taken ₹2.50 lakhs on the promise of providing employment and subsequently subjected the complainant to threats and abusive language.

The bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed,

“While the petitioners may fall within the definition of 'public servants' as contemplated under Section 21 of the RPC, Section 197 of the CrPC specifically extends protection only to those who are not removable from office except by or with the sanction of the Government. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, as bank employees, cannot invoke Section 197 as a shield against prosecution for the aforementioned offences. This contention raised in this regard is, therefore, rejected.”

In the instant case the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate asserting that petitioner No. 1 (Branch Manager), acting on the instructions of petitioner No. 2 (Zonal Head), took ₹2.50 lakhs from him on the promise of providing employment. The complainant claimed that his subsequent requests for the job were met with threats.

He further alleged that after being called to the bank branch by petitioner No. 1, he was subjected to abusive language by both petitioners. Upon filing of the complaint, the Magistrate recorded the statements of the complainant and his witness, and on the basis of that preliminary evidence, issued a process against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 504 and 506 RPC.

Court's Observation:

The Court first addressed the petitioners' contention that being public servants under Section 21 of the RPC, they could not be prosecuted without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC.

Relying on a coordinate bench judgment in State Bank of India Anantnag v. G. M. Jamsheed, the Court observed that while a bank official may qualify as a public servant, no prior sanction is required for prosecution under the IPC/RPC, as the protection under Section 197 CrPC is confined to those public servants who are not removable from office except by or with the sanction of the Government. Bank employees, being removable without government sanction, cannot claim this protection.

The Court then examined the merits of the complaint. It found that the substance of the complaint was “fatally vague.” The complainant alleged that a payment of ₹2.50 lakhs was made “two months ago” without specifying the exact date, time, or venue. The assertion that petitioner No. 1 received the amount at the instance of petitioner No. 2 was entirely unsubstantiated, with no basis or source of knowledge disclosed. The Court held that such bald and unsupported assertions did not disclose any prima facie material, particularly against petitioner No. 2.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1994) 5 SCC 749, the Court reiterated that summoning an accused is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording preliminary evidence and he may even put questions to the complainant and witnesses to find out the truthfulness of the allegations, the Court underscored.

The Court found that the Magistrate had issued a process against the petitioners in a perfunctory manner, without addressing material ambiguities or undertaking the necessary scrutiny to test the veracity of the allegations.

“… The issuance of process appears to have been made in a routine manner rather than as a result of a reasoned judicial determination based on the material placed on record. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order suffers from a fundamental lack of application of mind”, the court remarked.

The Court thus set aside the impugned order dated but clarified that the proceedings in the complaint were not being quashed at this stage. The matter was remitted to the learned trial court for passing fresh orders in accordance with law.

Case Title: Jasmeet Singh & Anr. v. Shafi Ahmed

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment