Case title: 

Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr

Date of Order: 

17.01.2024

Bench: 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Parties: 

Appellant(s): Shadakshari

Respondent(s): State of Karnataka & Anr.

SUBJECT:

The present case being dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’) revolves around the interpretation of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the Supreme Court clarified that the protection afforded by this section is not all-encompassing and is applicable only to acts carried out in the discharge of official duties by a public servant. The judgment overturned a High Court decision that quashed a complaint and chargesheet based solely on the denial of official sanction, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• Section 409
• Section 419
• Section 420
• Section 423
• Section 465
• Section 466
• Section 467
• Section 468
• Section 471
• Section 473
• Section 149
• Section 34

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):

• Section 482
• Section 173
• Section 197

OVERVIEW:

• The Appellant/complainant filed a complaint against several persons, inclusive of respondent no. 2, Mallikarjuna, alleging that the accused individuals engaged in the creation of fake documents related to a piece of land for illegal gain.
• The police investigated the complaint, and the Sub Inspector of Police submitted a chargesheet on March 20, 2018, charging the accused under various sections of the IPC.
• Respondent No. 2 approached the High Court and sought the quashing of the complaint, chargesheet, and related orders.
• The High Court quashed the proceedings, stating that in order to prosecute a public servant, an official sanction was required.
• The High Court’s order has been challenged before this Court.

ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether respondent no. 2 was involved in fabricating official documents by misusing his official position as a public servant in a matter of time.
• Whether it is necessary to obtain official sanction to prosecute respondent no. 2 for creating fraudulent documents through the improper use of his official role as a public servant?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:

• The creation of fake documents by respondent No. 2 is not an act falling within the scope of his official duties as a Village Accountant. Therefore, the official sanction is not required for the prosecution.
• The alleged creation of fake documents by respondent No. 2 is an abuse of his official position, suggesting that he misused his authority for personal gain.
• The appellants challenged the High Court's decision to quash the complaint and chargesheet based on the denial of official sanction.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:

• Respondent No. 2 argued that the alleged creation of fake documents was within the scope of his official duties as a Village Accountant.
• Being a public servant, any prosecution against respondent No. 2 for acts related to his official duties requires official sanction. Without such sanction, the prosecution cannot proceed.
• Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure aims to protect public servants from frivolous or unwarranted prosecutions arising from actions taken in the discharge of their official duties.
• The High Court's decision to quash the complaint and chargesheet based on the denial of official sanction was justified.
• The High Court correctly interpreted the law and applied it to the circumstances of the case.
• The denial of sanction was a valid ground for quashing the proceedings.
• Respondent No. 2 claimed that the alleged acts were carried out without any malicious intent and were connected to the discharge of his official duties.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

• The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 197 protection is applicable only to those acts or omissions that are directly linked to the official duties of a public servant
• The Court clarified that Section 197 CrPC does not provide blanket protection to all actions or omissions of a public servant during their service.
• The protective cover of the Court is limited to acts or omissions done in the discharge of official duties.
• The Court emphasized that the primary objective of requiring official sanction for the prosecution of a public servant is to shield them from undue harassment arising from frivolous criminal proceedings.
• This protection is deemed necessary when the actions are integral to the discharge of official duties.
• The Court acknowledged that the question of whether the accused, a public servant, was involved in fabricating official documents by misusing his position is a matter that should be determined during the trial.
• The apex court suggested that manufacturing such documents may not inherently be considered part of the official duty of a public servant.
• The Court signaled that a comprehensive view can be taken during the trial to ascertain whether the alleged fabrication of documents falls within the realm of official duties or whether it is an act beyond the scope of the public servant's official responsibilities.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in its judgment by quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety. The Court reiterated the object of sanction for prosecution under section 197 of CrPC is to protect a public servant discharging official duties and functions from undue harassment by initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings. It set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the appeal, with no order as to costs.