Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Sanction is not required to prosecute a public servant who faces accusation of creating fake documents by misusing his official position MANU/SC/0042/2024 - (17 Jan 2024) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Shadakshari Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 42)</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The Appellant as the complainant lodged a first information report alleging that Respondent No. 2 were irregularly creating documents of property in the name of dead person despite knowing the fact that those were fake documents, such as, death certificate, family tree of the original successor of land of the Appellant etc. for illegal gain. The said first information was received and registered under Sections 409, 419, 420, 423, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 473 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 149 and Section 34 thereof. 
Respondent No. 2 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for quashing of the said FIR before the High Court. Challenge made in present appeal is to the order passed by the High Court quashing the complaint lodged by the Appellant. 
The question for consideration in present appeal is whether sanction is required to prosecute Respondent No. 2 who faces accusation amongst others of creating fake documents by misusing his official position as a Village Accountant, thus a public servant? 
 The competent authority has declined to grant sanction to prosecute. High Court has held that, in the absence of such sanction, Respondent No. 2 cannot be prosecuted and consequently has quashed the complaint as well as the chargesheet, giving liberty to the Appellant to assail denial of sanction to prosecute Respondent No. 2 in an appropriate proceeding, if so advised. 
As per Sub-section (1) of Section 197 where 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 of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. 
The ambit, scope and effect of Section 197 of CrPC have received considerable attention of this Court. The object of such sanction for prosecution is to protect a public servant discharging official duties and functions from undue harassment by initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings.Section 197 of CrPC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties. 
The question whether Respondent No. 2 was involved in fabricating official documents by misusing his official position as a public servant is a matter of trial. Certainly, a view can be taken that manufacturing of such documents or fabrication of records cannot be a part of the official duty of a public servant. If that be the position, the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety, more so when there are two other Accused persons besides Respondent No. 2. 
Respondent No. 2 had unsuccessfully challenged the complaint in an earlier proceeding under Section 482 of CrPC. Though liberty was granted by the High Court to Respondent No. 2 to challenge any adverse report if filed subsequent to the lodging of the complaint, instead of confining the challenge to the chargesheet, Respondent No. 2 also assailed the complaint as well which he could not have done.The High Court had erred in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety. Consequently, the order of the High Court passed in Criminal Petition is set aside. Appeal allowed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Sanction, Provision, Applicability</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>