Read Time: 17 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on April 3, 2025, said the safeguard of obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority, as envisaged under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act cannot be rendered nugatory merely because the acts alleged against public servants may have exceeded the strict bounds of official duty. It emphasised a mere excess or overreach in the performance of official duty does not, by itself, disentitle a public servant from the statutory protection mandated by law. 

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma noted while Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act mandates prior sanction for prosecuting a public official for "acts done under colour of, or in excess of, such duty or authority," Section 197 of the CrPC requires prior sanction where a public official is accused of having committed “any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty.” 

The underlying rationale of both these statutory provisions is to safeguard public functionaries from frivolous or vexatious prosecution for actions undertaken in good faith in the discharge of, or purported discharge of, their official duties, thereby ensuring that the fear of litigation does not impede the efficient functioning of public administration, it said. 

The court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against two policemen G C Manjunath and Chikkaveerabhadraiah, accused of assaulting a man in a police station in Bengaluru during the period in 1999-2000.

The court allowed their appeal against the order of the Karnataka High Court which had noted that the accused persons exceeded their limits and assaulted the complainant resulting in grave injuries. The high court had held that the same could not be termed as an act done in the discharge of the official duty and protection could not be given under Section 197 of the CrPC. It had also held that an order of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act was not necessary in the instant case.

Three other police officers named as accused had died during the pendency of the matter. The two surviving accused attained superannuation from their posts in the years 2015 and 2020, respectively. 

Upon hearing the counsel for the rival parties and after a thorough examination of the material available on record, the bench said the core issue that emerged for determination was, whether, the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was legally justified in taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused persons in the private complaint filed in 2007 with regard to the alleged incident in 1999-2000, in the absence of the prior sanction contemplated under Section 197 of the CrPC read with Section 170 of the Police Act.

The court said the real question, therefore, was whether the acts complained of were 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. 

After going through several past judgments, the bench said the guiding principle governing the necessity of prior sanction stood well crystallised. 

The pivotal inquiry is whether the impugned act is reasonably connected to the discharge of official duty. If the act is wholly unconnected or manifestly devoid of any nexus to the official functions of the public servant, the requirement of sanction is obviated. Conversely, where there exists even a reasonable link between the act complained of and the official duties of the public servant, the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act is attracted. In such cases, prior sanction assumes the character of a sine qua non, regardless of whether the public servant exceeded the scope of authority or acted improperly while discharging his duty, the bench said.

Turning to the case at hand, the court said, there was little doubt that the allegations levelled against the accused persons were grave in nature. 

Broadly classified, the accusations against the accused persons encompassed the following: (1) abuse of official authority by the accused persons in allegedly implicating the complainant in fabricated criminal cases, purportedly driven by malice or vendetta; (2) physical assault and ill-treatment of the complainant by the accused persons, constituting acts of alleged police excess; (3) wrongful confinement of the complainant; and (4) criminal intimidation of the complainant, the bench noted.  

"In the circumstances at hand, we are of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled against the accused persons, though grave, squarely fall within the ambit of "acts done under colour of, or in excess of, such duty or authority," and “acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty,” as envisaged under Section 170 of the Police Act and Section 197 of the CrPC respectively," the bench said.

The apex court, while adjudicating on instances of alleged police excess, has consistently held in Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur vs. State of Mysore, (1963) and D Devaraja Vs Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020), 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, court stressed. 

It has been categorically held that transgression or overstepping of authority does not, by itself, suffice to displace the statutory safeguard of requiring prior government sanction before prosecuting the public servant concerned, the bench said.  

In the present case, it is an admitted position that the complainant was declared a rowdy sheeter by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order (West), Bengaluru City, pursuant to a request made by the Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, upon due consideration of the criminal cases registered against the complainant, by an order of August 23, 1990, court noted. 

Subsequently, multiple criminal cases were instituted against the complainant. It is in the course of the investigation of these cases that the instant allegations have been levelled against the accused persons. Any action undertaken by a public officer, even if in excess of the authority vested in them or overstepping the confines of their official duty, would nonetheless attract statutory protection, provided there exists a reasonable nexus between the act complained of and the officer’s official functions, the bench said.

In the present case, the court said, it was evident that the actions attributed to the accused persons emanated from the discharge of their official duties, specifically in connection with the investigation of criminal cases pending against the complainant.

"A mere excess or overreach in the performance of official duty does not, by itself, disentitle a public servant from the statutory protection mandated by law. The safeguard of obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority, as envisaged under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act cannot be rendered nugatory merely because the acts alleged may have exceeded the strict bounds of official duty," the bench said.  

The bench thus held, "We are of the considered opinion that the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate erred in taking cognisance of the alleged offences against the accused persons without the requisite sanction for prosecution in the instant case. The absence of the necessary sanction vitiates the very initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused persons."

The court also noted admittedly, the alleged incident pertained to the period of 1999-2000. Both the accused retired from service long ago on attaining the age of superannuation; accused No.2 superannuated in the year 2015 and is presently 71 years of age, while accused No 5 retired in the year 2020 and is now 64 years old. 

"In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that no meaningful purpose would be served by prolonging the criminal prosecution against them. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the ends of justice would be adequately met in the instant case by quashing the proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 5," the bench said. 

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Karnataka High Court's order and quashed the summons issued against the police personnel. 

Case Title: G C Manjunath & Others Vs Seetaram