Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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