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

When Sanction Required Under Section 197 CrPC Answered By Supreme Court - Prosecution of SAF Officers an Abuse of Legal Process – Complaint Quashed

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a noteable judgment, the Supreme Court of India, through the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, decisively quashed a criminal complaint against officers of the Special Armed Forces (SAF). The Court held, "the further prosecution of the complaint was itself an abuse of the process of law," addressing critical issues regarding the necessity of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and the misuse of the legal process.

The crux of the Supreme Court's decision was twofold: the requirement of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC for offenses allegedly committed by SAF officers, and the determination of whether continuing the prosecution amounted to an abuse of the legal process.

The case centered on a property dispute in Gwalior city, with allegations of trespass and other offenses against SAF officers. The first respondent, claiming to be the property owner, filed a criminal complaint following various legal proceedings, including a civil suit and a contempt petition.

On Sanction for Prosecution: The Court meticulously examined whether the acts attributed to the SAF officers were executed as part of their official duties. Justice Oka remarked, "The determination of the necessity of sanction for prosecution hinges on whether the acts were in discharge of official duties." The Court found that the learned Magistrate had not adequately addressed this aspect, leaving a critical legal requirement unfulfilled.

On Abuse of Legal Process: The Court observed a significant overlap with the issues raised in a previously dismissed contempt petition and the criminal complaint, indicating a potential abuse of the legal process. "The prosecution based on near-replicated allegations from a dismissed contempt petition highlights a troubling misuse of judicial mechanisms," Justice Oka noted. Furthermore, the Court pointed out the non-disclosure of the dismissal of the contempt petition in the criminal complaint, which was deemed a crucial omission impacting the legitimacy of the proceedings.

The apex court, in its ruling, nullified the orders of the High Court and the Magistrate, dismissing the complaint against the SAF officers. It underscored that the legal proceedings were an abuse of the process and dismissed the necessity for sanction under Section 197 CrPC.

Date of Decision: March 4, 2024

Murari Lal Chhari & Ors. vs. Munishwar Singh Tomar & Anr.

 

Latest Legal News