2009 (1) TMI 546 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: No Section 197 protection for police officer in off-duty acts. Trial to proceed for IPC offenses.

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was not entitled to the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. for alleged acts ... Whether in view of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, previous sanction of the State Government was necessary for prosecuting the respondent No. 2, Sahabul Hussain, under Section 384/506 of the Indian Penal Code? Held that:- Appeal allowed. The offences complained of cannot be said to part of the duties of the Investigating Officer while investigating an offence alleged to have been committed. It was no part of his duties to threaten the complainant or her husband to withdraw the complaint. In order to apply the bar of Section 197 Cr. P.C. each case has to be considered in its own fact situation in order to arrive at a finding as to whether the protection of Section 197 Cr. P.C. could be given to the public servant. The fact situation in the complaint in this case is such that it does not bring the case within the ambit of Section 197 and the High Court erred in quashing the same as far as the respondent No. 2 is concerned. The complaint prima facie makes out offences alleged to have been committed by the respondent No. 2 which were not part of his official duties. Set aside the judgment and order of the High Court. Issues:Whether previous sanction of the State Government was necessary for prosecuting the respondent under Section 384/506 of the Indian Penal Code.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Previous Sanction RequirementThe appeal revolved around the necessity of obtaining previous sanction from the State Government for prosecuting the respondent under Section 384/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was accused of threatening the appellant's husband during an investigation. The High Court quashed the proceedings citing the protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which requires sanction for prosecuting public servants for acts done in the discharge of official duties. The appellant challenged this decision.Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 197 Cr.P.C.The appellant argued that the acts complained of were not part of the respondent's official duties, thus not falling under the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. Reference was made to legal precedents like Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan and Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Misra to support this argument. These cases emphasized that not all actions by public servants could be considered as official duties, and the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not absolute.Issue 3: Misuse of AuthorityThe Supreme Court analyzed the nature of the acts attributed to the respondent and concluded that they were not part of his official duties. The Court emphasized that misuse or abuse of authority by a public servant cannot claim protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The judgment highlighted that the purpose of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is to shield public servants against false prosecutions, not to protect them from actions outside the scope of their duties.Issue 4: Decision and RulingAfter considering the arguments, the Supreme Court sided with the appellant's contention. The Court held that the respondent was not entitled to the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. for the acts in question. It overturned the High Court's decision, stating that the complaint prima facie alleged offenses that were not part of the respondent's official duties. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial of all accused, including the respondent.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies surrounding the interpretation and application of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the context of prosecuting public servants for acts allegedly committed outside the scope of their official duties.