Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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