S. 197 CrPC | Order Granting Or Denying Sanction Must Show Clear Application of Mind : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a sanction under Section 197 CrPC to prosecute a public servant cannot rest on vague or mechanical assertions and must reflect a clear application of mind by the competent authority.

“Application of mind by the authorities granting or denying sanction must be easily visible including consideration of the evidence placed before it in arriving at the conclusion.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh while allowing an IAS officer's appeal, noting that the supplementary chargesheet was filed after an inordinate delay and that the sanction order was vitiated for being passed without proper application of mind.

Setting aside the Patna High Court's decision refusing to quash the FIR on the grounds of a vitiated sanction order, the judgment authored by Justice Karol observed:

“The avowed object of sanctions being granted before cognizance is to ensure that the threat of criminal prosecution does not hang over the heads of the officials in discharge of theirpublic duty...If sanction is based on what can at best be described as vague statements such as “on perusal of the documents and evidences mentioned in Case Diary available”, this protection would be obliterated. The remainder of the sanction order touches upon the essence of Section 197 CrPC and the fact that the appellant is a public servant who would be covered thereby. The substance of why a sanction is required was however entirely missed by the sanctioning authority. The same is bad in law and must be, set aside. All consequential actions including the order taking cognizance, therefore would be quashed.”

Background

The genesis of the case dates back to 2005 when an FIR was lodged in Saharsa, Bihar, alleging that the Appellant, while serving as the District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority (2002-2005), had issued arms licenses to fictitious and physically unfit persons without proper police verification. The initial investigation in 2006 cleared the appellant, terming the allegations against him “false.” However, in 2009, the Chief Judicial Magistrate permitted further investigation. It then took the investigating agency until 2020,a gap of 11 years,to file a supplementary chargesheet naming the officer as an accused. Sanction for prosecution was granted in 2022.

Apart from the aspect of the vitiated sanction order, the Court also condemned the “unreasonably long period” of 11 years taken for further investigation. The judgment stated that the appellant had “the cloud of a criminal investigation hanging over him for all these years.”

Reaffirming that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the investigation stage, the Court held, “investigations cannot continue endlessly.” It concluded that the accused “cannot be made to suffer endlessly with this threat of continuing investigation,” and the delay itself was a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings.

The appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: ROBERT LALCHUNGNUNGA CHONGTHU @ R L CHONGTHU VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1128

Click here to download judgment

Also From Judgment: Investigation Cannot Go Endlessly; Long Delay In Filing Chargesheet Can Be A Ground To Quash Proceedings : Supreme Court