Revisional jurisdiction over summons orders and limits on sanction protection clarified under the Criminal Procedure Code.

An order issuing summons under the Code of Criminal Procedure is an intermediate or quasi-final order, not a purely interlocutory one, so revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 is available. The earlier view that only inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 could be invoked was not accepted as exclusive. Protection under Section 197 applies only where the alleged act bears a direct and reasonable connection with official duty; allegations of unlawful entry, search, humiliation, forced medical examination, and threats were held to be wholly unconnected with any lawful official function, so previous sanction was not required. The summoning order was restored and the prosecution was permitted to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order issuing summons under the Code of Criminal Procedure is an interlocutory order or an intermediate or quasi-final order so as to attract revisional jurisdiction under Section 397. (ii) Whether the alleged acts of the public servant had a direct and reasonable nexus with his official duty so as to require previous sanction under Section 197 for prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether an order issuing summons under the Code of Criminal Procedure is an interlocutory order or an intermediate or quasi-final order so as to attract revisional jurisdiction under Section 397.

Analysis: An order directing issuance of summons is not purely interlocutory. It is an intermediate or quasi-final order because, if the objection to it is upheld, the prosecution proceedings may be brought to an end. The earlier authorities recognising the revisability of such orders were followed and the contrary understanding that only inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 could be invoked was not accepted as the exclusive remedy.

Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 was available against the order issuing summons.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged acts of the public servant had a direct and reasonable nexus with his official duty so as to require previous sanction under Section 197 for prosecution.

Analysis: Protection under Section 197 is available only when the act complained of is reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty or is done in purported discharge of such duty. The allegations in the complaint, including entering a house at night, search, humiliation, forced medical examination, and threats, did not disclose any lawful official function under the relevant provisions of the Code. The acts complained of were held to be wholly unconnected with official duty and could not be sheltered by the sanction requirement.

Conclusion: Previous sanction under Section 197 was not required.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside, the summoning order was restored, and the prosecution was permitted to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An order issuing summons under Sections 200 to 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an intermediate or quasi-final order revisable under Section 397, and Section 197 protection applies only where the alleged act bears a direct and reasonable connection with official duty.

---