MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Acts Done in Discharge of Official Duty Require Prior Sanction" – Rajasthan High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against SHO

23 December 2024 4:09 PM

By: sayum


The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Dharamveer Singh, a Station House Officer (SHO) at Police Station Masooda, citing the lack of prior sanction required for prosecuting a public servant under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The judgment underscores the statutory protection afforded to public servants to prevent frivolous prosecutions.

The case originated from an incident on May 22, 2003, when Dharamveer Singh, in his capacity as SHO, arrested Anda and two others for allegedly breaching peace. They were detained overnight and produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) the next day, who ordered their release on bail. Anda later filed a complaint accusing Singh of illegal detention and physical abuse, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings against Singh for offenses under Sections 323, 342, 365, and 504 IPC.

Justice Sudesh Bansal emphasized that the prosecution of a public servant for acts done in the discharge of official duties requires prior sanction from the government under Section 197 CrPC. "The petitioner cannot be prosecuted for acts performed in his official capacity without the requisite sanction," the judgment stated, highlighting the statutory protection intended to shield public servants from baseless allegations.

The court noted that the initial detention of the complainants was lawful and conducted under Section 151 CrPC to prevent the commission of a cognizable offense. The allegations of physical abuse were deemed to be an afterthought, as no complaints were made when the detainees were first produced before the SDM.

The court found that the injury reports and subsequent complaints lacked credibility. "The allegations of abuse and beatings appear to be fabricated and aimed at harassing the petitioner," the judgment observed. It was also highlighted that the Judicial Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without insisting on the mandatory sanction.

The judgment extensively discussed the principles governing the protection of public servants under Section 197 CrPC. It reiterated that acts performed in the discharge of official duties, even if exceeding authority, are protected from prosecution without prior sanction. The court referred to several precedents to underscore this legal principle, including judgments from the Supreme Court and other High Courts.

Justice Sudesh Bansal stated, "The protection under Section 197 CrPC is crucial for ensuring that public servants are not unduly harassed by malicious prosecutions. The absence of sanction renders the cognizance taken by the lower courts unsustainable."

The Rajasthan High Court's decision to quash the criminal proceedings against SHO Dharamveer Singh reinforces the legal safeguards provided to public servants under Section 197 CrPC. The judgment sends a clear message about the necessity of obtaining prior sanction for prosecuting public officials, thereby upholding the integrity of their official functions. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for future cases involving allegations against public servants.

Date of Decision: May 8, 2024

Latest Legal News