Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has clarified that police officials accused of lodging false cases cannot claim protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates prior sanction for prosecution. The court emphasized that fabricating evidence or filing bogus cases cannot be considered part of a public official's duties.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Om Prakash Yadav. The appeal challenged the Allahabad High Court's 2018 decision to quash proceedings against Madhya Pradesh police personnel, including Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay, who were accused of lodging a fabricated case under the Excise Act.

The false case, filed in Gwalior, was allegedly intended to create an alibi for the accused in connection with the 2007 murder of Yadav's brother in Firozabad. The High Court had quashed the proceedings on the grounds that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was not obtained, which it deemed necessary to prosecute the police personnel.

After hearing the parties at length and going through the previous cases on the issue, the bench said that the position of law on the application of Section 197 CrPC is clear – that it must be decided based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.

"This court has held in a legion of decisions that any misuse or abuse of powers by a public servant to do something that is impermissible in law like threatening to provide a tutored statement or trying to obtain signatures on a blank sheet of paper; causing the illegal detention of an accused; engaging in a criminal conspiracy to create false or fabricated documents; conducting a search with the sole object of harassing and threatening individuals, amongst others, cannot fall under the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC," the bench said.

The court pointed out that the mere fact that an official duty provided the opportunity to lodge a false case does not justify invoking Section 197 CrPC to shield the accused. The court observed that allowing such an interpretation would enable public servants to misuse their official status as a facade for engaging in illegal and objectionable acts, thereby taking undue advantage of their position.

The bench felt there might arise situations where the complaint or the police report may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty. However, the facts subsequently coming to light may establish the necessity for sanction. Therefore, the question whether sanction is required or not is one that may arise at any stage of the proceeding and it may reveal itself in the course of the progress of the case, it said.

The court also pointed out there may also be certain cases where it may not be possible to effectively decide the question of sanction without giving an opportunity to the defence to establish that what the public servant did, he did in the discharge of official duty.

"Therefore, it would be open to the accused to place the necessary materials on record during the trial to indicate the nature of his duty and to show that the acts complained of were so interrelated to his duty in order to obtain protection under Section 197 CrPC," the bench said.

The bench also said while deciding the issue of sanction, it is not necessary for the court to confine itself to the allegations made in the complaint. It can take into account all the material on record available at the time when such a question is raised and falls for the consideration of the Court.

"Courts must avoid the premature staying or quashing of criminal trials at the preliminary stage since such a measure may cause great damage to the evidence that may have to be adduced before the appropriate trial court," the bench said.

In the instant case on a prima facie examination of the materials, the bench concluded that the criminal proceedings pending before the CJM, Firozabad should not have been quashed at such a preliminary stage.

"In cases where there is a legitimate doubt as regards whether sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC is required or not, the progress of the trial must not be hampered or unnecessarily delayed," the bench said.

Therefore, the CJM, Firozabad had rightly taken cognizance of the two charge sheets vide its orders on November 24, 2008 and August 10, 2009 respectively, it said.

"The High Court committed an error in failing to consider this aspect while quashing the proceedings vide its impugned order," the bench held.

With regard to respondent no. 1, the bench clarified that there was no requirement for sanction since he was not acting in the discharge of his official duty by virtue of not being posted at Murar Police Station, Gwalior at the relevant time when the alleged false case was registered.

So far as the other accused were concerned, the bench said, "If the case of the prosecution that they had also played a dubious role in registering a false case is correct then the requirement of sanction would not be a sin qua non for proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. However, the defence must be given an opportunity to rebut the same by leading appropriate evidence".

The court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial and at any stage of the trial if the evidence suggests that the acts complained of were indeed done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty or that the FIR registered by them was not bogus, the trial may be stayed for want of sanction. The court also said as these proceedings arose from a case registered more than 16 years ago, the Trial Court shall proceed with the trial and conclude it expeditiously preferably within one year.

Case Title: Om Prakash Yadav Vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors