The Supreme Court recently nullified a criminal case and a summoning order issued against a District Town Planner, Gurmeet Kaur, citing the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to prosecute her for actions performed as part of her official duties under the instructions of senior officers.

The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh, emphasized the necessity of prior sanction in such cases. "We observe that the first respondent herein ought to have sought sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC in the instant case. The same, not having been done, vitiated the initiation of the criminal proceeding against the appellant herein. Consequently, the summoning order and the consequent steps taken by the Trial Court pursuant to the said summoning order are liable to be quashed and are thus quashed. Insofar as the very initiation of the complaint is concerned, we observe that since there was no prior order of sanction passed under Section 197 of the CrPC, the initiation of the complaint itself, is non-est," the court stated.

The appeal stemmed from a High Court decision that refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against Kaur, who was a District Town Planner at the time. The proceedings arose from her involvement in the demolition of a private college, an act executed under the orders of her superior officers. The appellant argued that the demolition exercise was inherently tied to her official duties and thus required prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. She asserted that the failure to obtain such sanction rendered the proceedings invalid.

The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether the demolition work fell within the scope of her official duties, thereby necessitating prior sanction for prosecution.

Addressing this question affirmatively, Justice Nagarathna, authoring the judgment, highlighted that the demolition exercise had a "direct and reasonable connection" with Kaur’s official duties. The Court referred to a previous ruling in Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh (2013), where former Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur clarified that "the test of the direct and reasonable connection between the official duty of the accused and the acts allegedly committed by them is, therefore, the true test to be applied while deciding whether the protection of Section 197 of the CrPC is available to a public servant accused of the commission of an offence."

Respondents opposing the appeal argued that the demolition did not fall under Kaur's official duties, negating the need for sanction. However, the Court dismissed these arguments, deeming the cited authorities inapplicable to the facts of the case.

The bench observed, "We find that this is not a case where the appellant herein carried out the demolition dehors any legal backing or basis; neither was the said act of carrying out of the demolition outside the scope of her authority as the District Town Planner in the Enforcement Division. The appellant was carrying out the orders of the superior officers. There is a correlation between the act of demolition and the discharge of official duty. The demolition was carried out during the course of performance of appellant's official duties." Given the absence of prior sanction as mandated under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the Court allowed the appeal, quashing the criminal case and summoning order against Gurmeet Kaur.

Cause Title: GURMEET KAUR VERSUS DEVENDER GUPTA & ANOTHER

Citation: 2024 INSC 967

Date: November-26-2024

Bench:  Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice N Kotiswar Singh

[Read/Download order]