Sanction U/S 197 CrPC Required Even If Police Officials Exceed Their Authority In Discharge Of Official Duty: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that even if the police officials exceed, to some extent, their authority in the discharge of their official/public duty, then also sanction would be required under section 197 CrPC for their prosecution.

Section 197 Cr.P.C. deals with the prosecution of Judges and Public Servants wherein sanction of the Government is stipulated for taking cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duties.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh categorically held that the court is barred to take cognizance of an alleged offence committed by the police personnel, which may be in excess of his official/public duty, if the prosecution has been initiated against such personnel without required sanction u/s 197 CrPC.

The case in brief

Essentially, the bench was dealing with a Section 482 CrPC plea filed by certain police personnel challenging an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoning them to face trial under Sections 323, 325, 379, 427, 452, and 506 IPC.

The case against the police personnel/applicants was registered in connection with an incident of the year 2014 wherein the applicants (along with other 8-10 police officials) had allegedly used mild force wto control the law and order situation in the Civil Courts compound in Pratapgarh that had arisen after a PAC personnel had fired upon one lawyer and he had sustained injury.

Allegedly, the applicants had reached the Court compound without the prior permission from the District Judge and had assaulted and abused the advocates due to which the advocates suffered injuries they also damaged the property of the advocates and snatched their mobile phones, etc. 

The CJM had issued summons to them in January 2015 to face the trial in the matter, however, they moved a revision plea before Sessions Judge Pratapgarh, which was dismissed in August 2017. Now, against that order, the applicants moved the instant plea praying to quash Sessions Judge's order.

Arguments advanced

It was the primary argument of the applicants that since they were discharging official/public duty when the alleged incident took place for which two complaints came to be filed and the applicants had been summoned as accused, therefore it was necessary to obtain the mandatory sanction of the competent authority under Section 197 CrPC to prosecute them.

Thus, it was argued that the Magistrate had exceeded its jurisdiction to take cognizance and summon the applicants as there was no proper sanction by the competent authority.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that assaulting the lawyers, destroying their properties and taking away their cellphones etc. cannot be said to be a part of the official duty of the applicants and therefore, no sanction was required for prosecuting them for the offences committed by them.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court observed that the object of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC is to protect the public servants discharging official/public functions from harassment by initiation of mala-fide/frivolous/retaliatory criminal proceedings.

Regarding the facts of the case, the Court noted that there was unrest and the atmosphere was highly changed within the court compund and the applicants, along with other police personnel, went to control the situation and maintain peace and order as there was an emergent situation to deal with by the police and, they could not have waited for the order to be passed by the District Judge to enter the Court premises.

"To control the situation, if they had used force, and as a result thereof, some lawyers had suffered injuries, it cannot be said that the police officers were not acting in discharge of their official duty. The question that the police personnel went there without permission of the District Court has no relevance inasmuch as the duty of the police is to maintain peace, law & order...On this ground that there was no order passed by the District Judge for the police to enter the Court compound, the action taken by the police officials cannot be said to be not one towards discharge of the official/public duty," the Court remarked.

Consequently, the Court opined that even if the police official had exceeded to some extent their authority in discharge of their official/public duty, then also sanction would be required for their prosecution. In absence of sanction, the Court held, the criminal proceedings against the applicants would be non-est and void and the same are liable to be quashed.

In view thereof, the application is hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned proceedings were quashed.

Case title - Ajeet Shukla And Ors. v. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Civil Sectt.And Ors [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5776 of 2017]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 386

Click Here To Read/Download Order