SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Sec 197 CrPC | Police Official cannot be prosecuted without prior Sanction: Allahabad HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Allahabad High Court recently held that even if police employees go beyond their powers while doing their official duties, prosecution sanction is still required.

If there is no reasonable connection to the official or public duty, the protection under Section 197 CrPC will not be available to such a public servant, according to the Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh panel.

The petitioners in this matter as well as 8–10 other police officers were the targets of two complaints that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 made before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Pratapgarh, stating that the police had abused and attacked the attorneys.

The activists were injured. Additionally, the police tampered with the advocates' belongings, stole their cell phones, etc.

The magistrate then issued the summons in accordance with Sections 323, 325, 379, 427, 452, and 504 of the IPC.

Nadeem Murtaza, the applicant's attorney, claimed that the applicants were doing official or public duties at the time of the alleged occurrence, for which two complaints were made and the applicants were summoned as accused.

According to Mr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, the respondent's attorney, the applicants' actions—including attacking the lawyers, damaging their property, stealing their smartphones, etc.—cannot be considered to be part of their official duties.

Whether the police officials are accountable under Sections 323, 325, 379, 427, 452, and 504 and 506 IPC was the question up for discussion before the bench.

The bench stated that the public servant has protection under Section 197 CrPC "where the offence is in relation of an act done or purported to be done in fulfilment of official/public duty." The purpose of this protection under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to safeguard public employees against harassment and malicious and retaliatory criminal prosecution. However, if the competent authority determines that the public servant's act was not in the course of performing his public duty, he will order the public servant to be prosecuted.

According to the High Court, the purpose of the sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC is to prevent public employees from being harassed by the initiation of false, frivolous, or retaliatory criminal proceedings while performing official or public duties.

The bench noted that the police officers had been hurt while trying to maintain control of the situation. It cannot be argued that the police officers were not engaged in the performance of their official job if they used force to manage the situation and some lawyers were hurt as a result.

According to the High Court, even if the police officer had inadvertently gone beyond the scope of their authority while doing their official or public duties, punishment would still be necessary for their prosecution. The criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be null and unlawful in the absence of a sanction, and they might be thrown out.

In light of the foregoing, The application was approved by the bench.

Ajeet Shukla And Ors. Vs The State Of U.P. 

Latest Legal News