Rajasthan High Court: In a criminal revision against trial court’s order framing charges against the custom officers (petitioners) without obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), a single-judge bench of Manoj Kumar Garg, J., quashed the trial court’s impugned order as it violates Section 197 CrPC which requires prior government sanction for prosecution against public servants in relation to an act done in discharge of official duty, even if excessive force is used.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, a written complaint was filed by complainant alleging that on 18-05-1988, while he was on leave, his residential house was raided by customs officers, but no objectionable material was found. Subsequently, on 03-06-1988, he was apprehended by two Inspectors of the Customs Department and taken to the customs office, where he was allegedly inflicted with injuries and threatened.
The police registered a case and initiated an investigation, which culminated in a negative Final Report. However, the complainant filed a protest petition, following which statements were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and later the trial court took cognizance against the accused petitioners.
The petitioners filed an application under Section 197 CrPC and argued that as public servants, cognizance against them could not be taken without prior sanction from the appropriate government, however, the trial court, vide order dated 09-11-1994, dismissed the application. The trial court, vide order dated 23-11-2016, framed charges against the petitioners under Sections 323, 325, 330, and 331 IPC, prompting the present criminal revision petition.
Moot Point
-
Whether the trial court erred in framing charges against the petitioners without obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC?
-
Whether the alleged acts of the petitioners were committed in discharge of their official duties, thus entitling them to protection under Section 197 CrPC?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioners contended that Section 197 CrPC provides absolute protection to public servants against prosecution for acts committed in the discharge of official duties unless sanctioned by the appropriate government. It was contended that the alleged offenses took place while interrogating the complainant in an official capacity. It was argued that the trial court misinterpreted Section 197 CrPC and failed to consider its applicability at the stage of framing of charges.
However, the respondents opposed the criminal revision petition and contended that offenses under Sections 323, 325, 330, and 331 of the IPC are prima facie made out in the present case. It was argued that the alleged acts were not done in discharge of official duty and thus do not attract the protection of Section 197 CrPC. It was further contended that the issue of sanction need not be considered at the charge-framing stage, where only the existence of a prima facie case is relevant.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that Section 197 of the CrPC requires prior sanction for prosecution of public servants and such sanction protects public servants from vexatious litigation for acts done in official capacity. The Court stated that the protection under Section 197 CrPC is available only if three conditions are fulfilled, i.e., the accused is
-
a public servant,
-
has allegedly committed an offence,
-
while acting or purporting or in connection to act in the discharge of his official duty.
“Any action taken in good faith by the Government officer in discharging of duties or performing their duites in good faith and intended to be done in pursuance of the law then no suit, prosecution or any other legal proceeding shall lie against the State Government or any officer of the these Government or any other person exercising any powers of discharging such functions without prior prosecution sanction.”
The Court referred to State of H.P. v. M.P. Gupta, (2004) 2 SCC 349, where the Supreme Court held that protection under Section 197 CrPC aims to “protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants” and Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das, (2006) 4 SCC 584, where the Supreme Court held that excess use of force during official duty does not automatically exclude the act from the purview of Section 197 CrPC
The Court noted that in State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40, it was held that if an act is reasonably connected to official duty, Section 197 protection applies even if there is an excess of power; Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 12 SCC 72, it was held that protection under Section 197 CrPC is available if the act is in the course of official duty, even if done in excess and D.T. Virupakshappa v. C. Subash, AIR 2015 SC 2022, it was held that if an alleged act has an essential connection to official duty, sanction under Section 197 CrPC is mandatory.
In the light of facts of the case, nature of the allegations and authorities cited, the Court stated that it appears that the petitioners’ actions, although potentially exceeded their authority, were connected to their official duties. Thus, the Court held that such use of excess of power should not serve as a basis to deny the public servants the protection afforded by the statute unless sanction for prosecution is granted by the State under Section 197 CrPC. The Court held that the trial court’s order framing charges against the petitioners without sanction is legally untenable.
“the petitioners may have exceeded their powers by beating and torturing the complainant to extract the truth, this cannot be construed as an act entirely disconnected from their official duty. Even though the petitioners acted in excess of their duty, such actions were still within the broader context of their official responsibilities. This excess of power does not negate the protection granted under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., as the offense remains connected to their official duties.
Court’s Decision
The Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the trial court’s order framing charges against the petitioners for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. However, the Court stated that this does not prevent the complainant from initiating fresh proceedings after obtaining the requisite sanction.
[Rakesh Mandola v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1463/2016, Decided on 14-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Nishant Bora, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP and Mr. Abhishek Purohit, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
