Section 197 CrPC | Prior Sanction Mandatory Even Where Acts Exceed Authority, If Reasonably Linked to Official Duty: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed a criminal appeal challenging the High Court's refusal to quash proceedings against two retired police officers. The Court held that the initiation of criminal proceedings without prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 was vitiated. It ruled that the alleged acts, though grave, bore a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty and therefore attracted statutory protection. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and quashed the criminal proceedings.
The appellants, police officers accused Nos.2, 3, and 5, challenged the High Court of Karnataka's order dated 17.03.2021 in Criminal Petition No.4512 of 2020, which upheld the summoning order passed by the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru dated 07.05.2016 and affirmed by the LXI City Civil and Sessions Judge on 11.06.2020.
The complainant had alleged that due to his efforts in prosecuting certain police officers for illegal activities, accused Nos.1 to 5—also police officers—were instigated to act against him. On 10.04.1999, accused Nos.2, 3, and 5 allegedly trespassed into his house, dragged him to the police station, stripped, and assaulted him. The next day, they allegedly forced him to pose with a slate bearing his name for a photograph taken by accused No.6, and registered false cases under Crime Nos.137 and 138 of 1999. The complainant was later acquitted in those cases.
A second incident was alleged to have occurred on 27.10.1999, when accused Nos.3 to 5 allegedly assaulted and detained the complainant, confiscated his belongings, and tortured him. He was later produced before a Magistrate in connection with Crime No.448 of 1999 under Section 392 IPC. The complainant was again allegedly mistreated and sought medical attention. Photographs allegedly taken by accused No.6 were published in a weekly magazine to defame him. The complainant filed a private complaint P.C.R. No.6754 of 2007, leading to C.C. No.368 of 2010.
The Magistrate took cognisance on 26.12.2009 and again on 07.05.2016 for select offences under Sections 326, 358, 500, 501, 502, 506(b) read with Section 34 IPC. Charges against accused No.6 were dropped. The revision petition filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 was dismissed on 11.06.2020. Their subsequent criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed by the High Court on 17.03.2021.
Before the Supreme Court, it was submitted that accused Nos.1, 3, and 4 had passed away and the case survived only against accused Nos.2 and 5. It was argued that the complaint, filed in 2007 for events of 1999-2000, was inordinately delayed, retaliatory in nature, and lacked prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act.
The Court framed the issue as: "Whether the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was legally justified in taking cognisance of the offences alleged against the accused persons... in the absence of the prior sanction contemplated under Section 197 of the CrPC read with Section 170 of the Police Act."
It examined the statutory text of both provisions, stating: "Section 170... is categorical in its stipulation that where any offence is alleged to have been committed... under colour or in excess of such duty or authority... the prosecution... shall not be entertained except with the previous sanction of the Government."
On Section 197 CrPC, the Court observed: "Acts bereft of any reasonable nexus to official functions fall outside the ambit of this safeguard and do not attract the bar imposed under Section 197..."
Referring to precedent, it stated: "An act constituting an offence, directly and reasonably connected with [a public servant's] official duty will require sanction for prosecution... It is the quality of the act that is important."
Quoting D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, it recorded: "Sanction becomes mandatory if there is a reasonable connection between the act and the officer’s official duties, even if the officer acted improperly or exceeded his authority."
The Court acknowledged that "the allegations levelled against the accused persons, though grave, squarely fall within the ambit of 'acts done under colour of, or in excess of, such duty or authority'." It recorded that the complainant had been declared a rowdy sheeter, and the acts complained of occurred in the course of investigating pending criminal cases.
It concluded: "The learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate erred in taking cognisance of the alleged offences... without the requisite sanction for prosecution. The absence of the necessary sanction vitiates the very initiation of criminal proceedings."
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2021 passed by the High Court in Criminal Petition No.4512 of 2020. It stated: "Consequently, Criminal Petition No.4512 of 2020 stands allowed. As a result, the summoning order dated 07.05.2016... as well as the order dated 11.06.2020... are hereby quashed."
The Court further recorded: "In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that no meaningful purpose would be served by prolonging the criminal prosecution against them... Accordingly, we are satisfied that the ends of justice would be adequately met in the instant case by quashing the proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 5."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior Advocate; Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Anil C. Nishani, Mr. Jayaramu H. L., Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Mr. Krishna M. Singh, Ms. Jyoti Mishra, Mr. Vishwesh Murnal, Mr. Gaurav Chavan, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Rohan Thwani, Advocate; Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Aakriti, Mrs. Saloni Sharan, Mr. Sarbendra Kumar, Advocates
Case Title: G.C. Manjunath & Others v. Seetaram
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 439
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.1759 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6053 of 2021)
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
[Read/Download order]
