Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against police officers in assault case due to lack of sanction: G.C. Manjunath & Others vs. Seetaram (2025) INSC 439 (03 April 2025)

Date of the Judgment: April 03, 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 439
Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J., Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

Were the police officers acting within their official duties when they allegedly assaulted and ill-treated a complainant, or did their actions exceed the scope of their duty, thus negating the need for prior government sanction for prosecution? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the case of G.C. Manjunath & Others vs. Seetaram, concerning allegations of assault and ill-treatment by police officers. The court examined whether the acts complained of were reasonably connected to the official duties of the accused, thereby attracting the statutory protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. The bench, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered the judgment.

Case Background:

The case originates from a private complaint filed by the respondent, Seetaram, against several police officers, including the appellants, alleging offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Seetaram claimed that these officers, acting out of revenge for his prosecution of other police officers’ illegal activities, had engaged in acts of assault, torture, and defamation against him.

Specifically, Seetaram alleged that on April 10, 1999, some of the accused trespassed into his house, forcibly took him to the Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, and subjected him to torture. He further stated that on October 27, 1999, he was again abducted and assaulted at the same police station, where his belongings were stolen. Additionally, he claimed that accused No.6 published defamatory photographs and slogans in Bruna Weekly Magazine on January 25, 2001, September 10, 2001, and September 15, 2001, intending to defame him.

As a result, on April 21, 2007, Seetaram filed a private complaint, P.C.R. No.6754 of 2007, before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, seeking cognizance of offences punishable under various sections of the IPC against the accused.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings:

Initially, the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the accused. Accused No.6 challenged this order before the High Court, which remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Subsequently, the Magistrate ordered the registration of a criminal case against accused Nos.1 to 5 for offences under Sections 326, 358, 500, 501, 502, 506 (b) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 then approached the LXI City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, who dismissed their revision petition. This dismissal was further challenged before the High Court, which also dismissed the petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework:

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
✓ Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, which mandates prior government sanction for prosecuting a police officer for acts done under color of duty or in excess of such duty. The section states:

“170. Suits or prosecutions in respect of acts done under colour of duty as aforesaid not to be entertained without sanction of Government. —(1) In any case of alleged offence by the Commissioner, a Magistrate, Police Officer or Reserve Police Officer or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such Commissioner, Magistrate, Police Officer or Reserve Police Officer or other person, by any act done under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid, or wherein it shall appear to the court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained except with the previous sanction of the Government.”

✓ Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which provides similar protection to public servants, including judges and magistrates, by requiring prior sanction for prosecuting them for offenses committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. The section 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 cognisance 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”

These provisions aim to protect public servants from frivolous or vexatious prosecution for actions undertaken in good faith during their official duties.

Arguments:

Arguments by the Appellants (Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 5):

• Delay in Filing Complaint: The appellants argued that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint, which was lodged on April 21, 2007, concerning incidents that allegedly occurred during 1999-2000 when the accused were actively serving as police officers.
• Retaliatory Measure: They contended that the complaint was a retaliatory measure filed vindictively against them for discharging their official duties, especially since it was filed shortly after the complainant’s acquittal in several criminal cases in 2006.
• Lack of Prior Sanction: The appellants emphasized that the complaint was filed without obtaining the necessary prior sanction as required under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act. They argued that the High Court erred in concluding that the alleged acts bore no connection to their official duties.
• Interpretation of “Under Colour or in Excess of Duty”: The appellants highlighted the significance of the expression “under colour or in excess of any such duty” in Section 170 of the Police Act, asserting that the alleged offenses fell squarely within this ambit, thus necessitating prior sanction.
• Reliance on Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur vs. State of Mysore: The appellants cited this case to support their contention that the phrase “under colour of duty” encompasses acts done by police officers ostensibly in the discharge of their official functions, even if they exceeded their authority.
• Misinterpretation of D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain: The appellants argued that the High Court misinterpreted this judgment, which, according to them, held that even if a police officer acts in excess of official duties, prior government sanction is required if there is a reasonable nexus between the act and the discharge of official functions.

Arguments by the Respondent (Complainant):

• Physical Assault and Ill-Treatment: The respondent contended that he was subjected to physical assault by the accused during his arrest in connection with certain criminal cases, and this was brought to the attention of the Magistrate, who directed medical treatment for his injuries.
• Evidence of Grievous Injuries: The respondent submitted documents, including a wound certificate and X-ray report, to demonstrate that he sustained grievous injuries, including broken teeth, corroborating the medical findings.
• Consistent Efforts to Obtain Sanction: The respondent argued that he had made consistent efforts from 2002 to 2006 to obtain sanction for prosecution, addressing multiple representations to the head of the department, but no conclusive response was forthcoming.
• Acts Beyond Official Duties: The respondent asserted that the accused persons, “under the colour of official duty,” removed his clothes, abused, and assaulted him, which had no bearing on or connection to official duties, thus exceeding the limits allowed by law.
• Reliance on Bakhshish Singh Brar vs. Gurmej Kaur: The respondent cited this case to argue that in order to determine whether an officer exceeded the limits of official capacity while ostensibly acting in the discharge of official duties, the court must first take cognizance of the offense, and the trial need not be stayed merely due to the absence of sanction at the initial stage.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was legally justified in taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused persons in P.C.R. No.6754/2007, in the absence of the prior sanction contemplated under Section 197 of the CrPC read with Section 170 of the Police Act.
2. Whether the acts complained of are reasonably connected to, or performed, in the purported discharge of the official duties of the accused persons, so as to attract the statutory protection afforded by the said provisions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities:

The court considered the following authorities:

Judgment:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 849: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that where a police officer, in the course of performing official duties, exceeds the bounds of such duty, the protective shield under the relevant statutory provisions continues to apply, provided there exists a reasonable nexus between the impugned act and the discharge of official functions.

✓ D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695: The Court referred to this judgment to emphasize that the protection of prior sanction will be available when there is a reasonable connection between the act and the officer’s duty, even if the officer exceeded his official powers.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?:

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, primarily focusing on the interpretation and application of Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act. The court emphasized that the key consideration was whether the alleged acts were reasonably connected to the discharge of official duties. The court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations against the accused but underscored that these allegations fell within the ambit of “acts done under colour of, or in excess of, such duty or authority.”

The court also took into account that the complainant was declared a rowdy sheeter, and the allegations against the accused arose during the investigation of criminal cases pending against the complainant. Furthermore, the court considered that the accused had retired from service, and prolonging the criminal prosecution would not serve any meaningful purpose.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (55%) than factual aspects (45%).

Logical Reasoning:

The court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of the legal provisions and the specific facts of the case. The court emphasized that the absence of the necessary sanction vitiated the very initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused persons.

The court quoted:
“…acts done under colour of, or in excess of, such duty or authority…”

The court also quoted:
“…acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty…”

The court further quoted:
“…the absence of the necessary sanction vitiates the very initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused persons.”

Key Takeaways:

• Prior sanction is required under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act before prosecuting public servants for acts reasonably connected to their official duties.
• Even if a public officer exceeds the scope of their authority, statutory protection is still available if there is a reasonable nexus between the act complained of and the officer’s official functions.
• The absence of the necessary sanction vitiates the initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused persons.

Directions:

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case.

Development of Law:

The ratio decidendi of the case is that prior sanction is required under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act before prosecuting public servants for acts reasonably connected to their official duties, even if they exceed the scope of their authority. This reaffirms the existing legal position and clarifies the scope of protection available to public servants under these provisions.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and quashing the summoning order against accused Nos. 2 and 5. The court held that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the alleged offences without the requisite sanction for prosecution, as the acts complained of were reasonably connected to the discharge of official duties.