Sec197 CrPC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service: SC sets aside Karnataka HC order quashing criminal case against village accountant
Justices Abhay S. Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan [17-01-2024]

Read Order: SHADAKSHARI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2024-SC]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, January 18, 2024:In a case where a village accountant was accused of fabricating official documents by misusing his official position as a public servant, the Supreme Court has held that the Karnataka High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety.

The factual background of the case which led to the filing of the appeal was that the appellant as the complainant lodged a first information report alleging that respondent No.2 and another were irregularly creating documents of property in the name of dead person despite knowing the fact that those were fake documents, such as, death certificate, family tree of the original successor of land of the appellant etc. for illegal gain. The said FIR was registered under Sections 409, 419, 420, 423, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 473 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 149 and Section 34 thereof.

The respondent No.2, working as Village Accountant in the district of Hassan, Karnataka State, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) for quashing of the said FIR before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court in its order noted that the specific case of the appellant was that land situated at Chattanahalli Village belonged to the appellant and his family members. The same was given to accused No.1 for the purpose of cultivation. Accused No.1 in collusion with revenue officials including accused No.2 (respondent No.2) created lot of fake documents in favour of respondent No.1.  The three accused persons were charged under Sections 471, 468, 467, 465, 420, 409, 466 and 423 read with Section 34 of IPC.

The appellants had approached the Top Court challenging Karnataka High Court’s order quashing the complaint, chargesheetand the Judicial Magistrate’s order. It was their case that no sanction to prosecute was required qua respondent No. 2 as making of a fake document couldn’t be said to be carried out by respondent No. 2 in the discharge of his official duty. Reference was made to Shambhoo Nath Misra Vs State of U.P., [LQ/SC/1997/481].

The issue before the Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was sanction was required to prosecute respondent No. 2 who faced accusation amongst others of creating fake documents by misusing his official position as a Village Accountant, thus a public servant.

At the outset, placing reliance upon State of Orissa Vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew, [LQ/SC/2004/426], the Bench opined that the object of sanction for prosecution is to protect a public servant discharging official duties and functions from undue harassment by initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings.Referring to more settle ratios and judgments, the Bench said, “Thus, this court has been consistent in holding that Section 197 Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties."

Relying upon A. Srinivasulu Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, the Respondent argued that a public servant cannot be prosecuted without obtaining sanction under Section 197 of Cr.PC. The Bench opined that in this judgment, four of the accused persons were officials of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, a public sector undertaking and thus were public servants. It was noted therein that accused No.1 could not be prosecuted for committing the offence of criminal conspiracy when sanction for prosecuting accused Nos.3 and 4 with whom criminal conspiracy was alleged, was declined.

As per the Bench, the facts of the present case were clearly distinguishable from the facts of A. Srinivasulu (supra). Moreover, the Bench held that the question whether respondent No.2 was involved in fabricating official documents by misusing his official position as a public servant was a matter of trial.

“Certainly, a view can be taken that manufacturing of such documents or fabrication of records cannot be a part of the official duty of a public servant. If that be the position, the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety, more so when there are two other accused persons besides respondent No.2”, the Top Court further opined.

It was also noticed by the Bench that Respondent No.2 had unsuccessfully challenged the complaint in an earlier proceeding under Section 482 Cr.PC. Though liberty was granted by the High Court to respondent No.2 to challenge any adverse report if filed subsequent to the lodging of the complaint, instead of confining the challenge to the chargesheet, respondent No.2 also assailed the complaint as well which he could not have done, the Bench added.

Thus, the Top Court held that the High Court had erred in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety. Consequently, the Bench set aside the order of the High Court.