Supreme Court clarifies the necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in cases of alleged police misconduct: Dr. S.M. Mansoori (Dead) Thr. L.R. vs. Surekha Parmar & Ors. (2023) INSC 359 (12 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 12 April 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 359
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a criminal complaint against a police officer be quashed at the initial stage for lack of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), even when the alleged actions appear to be outside the scope of official duty? The Supreme Court addressed this critical issue in a case involving allegations of assault, theft, and illegal detention by a police officer. The Court clarified that a decision on the necessity of sanction should be made after evidence is presented, not at the initial stage of the complaint. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed by Dr. S.M. Mansoori before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh, against police officer Surekha Parmar and others. The complaint alleged that on July 7, 2000, Surekha Parmar, then an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) at Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur, along with other police personnel, forcibly entered the complainant’s house in Anuppur and assaulted him and his family. The complainant stated that the police personnel also stole cash and gold ornaments. The police action was purportedly in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the complainant’s daughter-in-law at Jabalpur.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 147, 323, 342, 504, and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The High Court of Madhya Pradesh initially dismissed a petition by the accused police officer to quash the complaint. However, after charges were framed by the Magistrate, and upheld by the Sessions Court, the High Court, in a subsequent petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, quashed the charges on the ground that a prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was not obtained.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which states:

“197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.—(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction—
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government.”

This section mandates that a prior sanction from the government is necessary before a court can take cognizance of an offense alleged to have been committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. The purpose of this provision is to protect public servants from frivolous or vexatious prosecution for actions taken in good faith while discharging their duties. The court also considered Sections 147, 323, 342, 504, and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which relate to rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful confinement, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation, respectively.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the High Court should not have quashed the charges at this stage.
• The appellant contended that the actions of the police officer, as described in the complaint, could not be considered as acts done in the discharge of her official duty.
• The appellant further submitted that the issue of sanction had already been raised and dismissed in an earlier petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, cannot be raised again.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that the police officer visited the appellant’s house in Anuppur to arrest him based on an FIR registered at Jabalpur.
• The respondent contended that the police officer was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of her official duty, thus requiring a prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
• The respondent submitted that the issue of sanction was kept open in the earlier judgment of the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the charges framed against the first respondent on the ground that a prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was not obtained?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, stating that the issue of sanction under Section 197 of CrPC should not have been decided at the initial stage of the proceedings. The Court emphasized that based on the allegations in the complaint, it appeared that the police officer’s actions were not in the discharge of her official duty. The Court held that a final view on the issue of sanction could only be taken after evidence was recorded. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s order of framing charges against the police officer.

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

• The High Court’s earlier judgment was considered and it was noted that the issue of sanction was kept open.

The Supreme Court stated:

“Going by the assertions in the complaint filed by the appellant, prima facie, it appears that without any authority, the first respondent, along with other police personnel, entered the house of the appellant early in the morning and committed the offences alleged against them.”

“Looking at the nature of the allegations in the complaint, at this stage, it is impossible to conclude that the acts allegedly done by the first respondent were committed by her while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of her official duty.”

“Therefore, at this stage, we cannot conclude that a sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was required. In the facts of the case, the final view on this issue can be taken only after the evidence is recorded.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that allegations of serious misconduct by public servants are not prematurely dismissed. The Court emphasized that the protection under Section 197 of CrPC is not absolute and should not be used to shield public servants from accountability for actions that are clearly outside the scope of their official duties. The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The allegations in the complaint suggested that the police officer’s actions were beyond the scope of her official duty.
• The High Court’s earlier judgment had already indicated that it was premature to conclude that Section 197 of CrPC was a bar to prosecution.
• The issue of sanction should be decided after evidence is recorded.

Key Takeaways

• Sanction under Section 197 of CrPC is not required at the initial stage if the allegations suggest that the actions of the public servant were not in discharge of their official duty.
• The issue of sanction should be decided after evidence is recorded.
• Courts should be cautious in quashing criminal proceedings against public servants at the initial stage.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restored the order of the learned Trial Court of framing charges. The Court also clarified that the observations and findings recorded in the judgment were for the limited purpose of considering the challenge to the order of the High Court and should not be construed as any final adjudication on the merits of the pending complaint, including the issue of sanction.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the necessity of sanction under Section 197 of CrPC should not be determined at the initial stage of a criminal complaint if the allegations suggest that the actions of the public servant were outside the scope of their official duty. This judgment clarifies that the protection of public servants under Section 197 is not absolute and should not be used to shield them from accountability for actions that are not connected to their official duties. This case reinforces the principle that the issue of sanction should be decided after evidence is recorded to ensure a fair trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. S.M. Mansoori (Dead) Thr. L.R. vs. Surekha Parmar & Ors. clarifies that the issue of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC should not be prematurely decided at the initial stage of a complaint if the alleged actions of a public servant appear to be outside the scope of their official duty. The Court emphasized that the decision on sanction should be made after evidence is recorded, ensuring that public servants are not shielded from accountability for misconduct while also protecting them from frivolous prosecution for actions taken in good faith during their official duties. This ruling reinforces the importance of a thorough examination of facts and evidence before determining the need for sanction in cases involving public servants.