Supreme Court clarifies the need for sanction under Section 197 CrPC in cases against police officers: Dr. S.M. Mansoori vs. Surekha Parmar & Ors. (2023) INSC 363 (12 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 12 April 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 363

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a criminal complaint against a police officer for alleged offenses be quashed for lack of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving allegations of assault and illegal detention against a police officer. The core issue was whether the alleged actions of the police officer were directly related to her official duties, thus requiring prior sanction for prosecution. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originates from a complaint filed by Dr. S.M. Mansoori (the original appellant), now represented by his legal heir, against Surekha Parmar (the first respondent), who was an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) at Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur. The complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Anuppur.

The complaint alleged that on 6th July 2000, ASI Surekha Parmar, along with other police personnel, came to Anuppur to arrest the appellant and his family members in connection with a First Information Report (F.I.R.) filed by Mehjabi Anjum (Dr. Mushtaq Mansoori’s wife) at Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur. The F.I.R. was registered against the appellant and his family for offenses under Section 498A, Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1964.

On 7th July 2000, at approximately 5:30 a.m., ASI Parmar and other police personnel allegedly entered the appellant’s house in Anuppur. They are accused of abusing and physically assaulting the appellant and his family members. The complaint details allegations of assault, dragging the appellant by his hair, and snatching a gold chain. It also alleges that the police personnel took Rs. 15,000 in cash and four gold ornaments from the almirah. The complaint further states that the family members were handcuffed, made to walk to the Anuppur Police Station, and subsequently taken to Jabalpur and detained at the Mahila Police Station.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Anuppur took cognizance of the offenses based on the complaint filed by the original appellant. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh initially dismissed a petition filed by the first respondent under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the complaint on 17th May 2010. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the first respondent under Sections 147, 323, 504, and 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Sessions Court dismissed a revision application filed by the first respondent against the Magistrate’s order. However, in a later petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court quashed the charges, citing the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 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 required 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 litigation.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the correctness of the accusations in the complaint should not be examined at this stage.
• The appellant contended that the actions of the first respondent, as described in the complaint, could not be considered as acts performed while discharging official duty. The actions included entering the house without authority, assault, and theft.
• The appellant further argued that the issue of sanction had been raised and dismissed in an earlier petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and therefore, could not be re-agitated.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that she and other police personnel went to Anuppur to arrest the appellant based on the F.I.R. registered at Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur.
• The respondent submitted that her visit to the appellant’s house was in the discharge of her official duty or, at the very least, she was purporting to act in the discharge of her duties.
• The respondent contended that the High Court rightly concluded that the complaint should be dismissed due to the absence of a sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lies in emphasizing that the alleged acts of assault, theft, and illegal detention were far removed from the legitimate exercise of police duties, thus negating the need for prior sanction.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issue that the court addressed 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 Court considered the following authorities:

Previous Judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh:

• The High Court’s judgment dated 17th May 2010 on the earlier petition filed by the first respondent under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court had previously held that it was premature to conclude that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was a bar to the prosecution.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section requires prior sanction for prosecuting public servants for offenses committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on the High Court’s previous judgment which had held that it was premature to conclude that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was a bar to the prosecution. The Court also analyzed Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and determined that the alleged actions of the first respondent did not seem to be in the discharge of her official duty. Therefore, the court concluded that at this stage, it is impossible to conclude that a sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was required.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the nature of the allegations made in the complaint. The Court emphasized that the alleged actions of the first respondent, such as entering the appellant’s house without authority, assaulting family members, and stealing valuables, did not appear to be acts performed in the course of her official duty. Therefore, the Court concluded that it was premature to determine that a sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was required. The Court also took into account that the High Court had previously kept the issue of sanction open, and that a final view on the matter could only be taken after the evidence was recorded.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

1. The High Court’s earlier observation that it was premature to conclude that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was a bar to the prosecution.
2. The nature of the allegations in the complaint, which suggested that the first respondent’s actions were not part of her official duty.
3. The need to record evidence to determine whether the alleged offenses were committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty.

The Court considered the argument that the police officer was acting in the discharge of her official duty when she went to arrest the appellant. However, the Court focused on the specific actions alleged in the complaint, such as assault, theft, and illegal detention. The Court found that these actions, if true, were not part of the normal discharge of official duty. The Court also noted that the High Court had previously held that it was premature to conclude that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was a bar to the prosecution.

The Court rejected the argument that a sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was mandatory at this stage. The Court emphasized that the final view on this issue could only be taken after the evidence was recorded. The Court also clarified that its observations and findings were limited to the purpose of considering the challenge to the High Court’s order and should not be construed as a final adjudication on the merits of the pending complaint, including the issue of sanction.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• A prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not automatically required for prosecuting a public servant.
• The need for sanction depends on whether the alleged actions were committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty.
• Allegations of assault, theft, and illegal detention by a police officer may not be considered as part of their official duty.
• Courts should not quash criminal proceedings at a preliminary stage based on the absence of sanction if the alleged actions do not appear to be related to official duty.
• The issue of sanction can be finally decided after evidence is recorded.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the order of the Trial Court framing charges. The Court directed that the matter should proceed in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court clarified that the requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not a blanket protection for public servants. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the need for sanction depends on the nature of the alleged actions and whether they are directly related to the discharge of official duty. This judgment reinforces the principle that public servants are not immune from prosecution for actions that are not part of their official duties. This case clarifies that the protection offered by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not absolute and is subject to the facts and circumstances of each case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s order of framing charges. The Court emphasized that the issue of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be decided after evidence is recorded and that the alleged actions of the police officer in this case did not appear to be part of her official duty. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the challenge to the High Court’s order and should not be considered a final adjudication on the merits of the pending complaint.