CHOUDHURY PARVEEN SULTANA versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 99 · Decided: 07-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 99 
CHOUDHURY PARVEEN SULTANA 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2009) 
JANUARY 7, 2009 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 197 - Protection 
under - Availability of - Intimidation by police official - In the 
course of investigation - Complaint against - Cognizance of, 
C 
taken by Magistrate - High Court quashing the proceedings 
holding that prior sanction u/s. 197 requir:ed before initiation 
of criminal proceedings, since the offence committed during 
discharge of official duties - On appeal, held: Protection uls. 
197 is not available if the public servant misuses or exceeds 
D 
its authority- On facts, acts done by the public servant cannot 
be said to be part of official duty - Hence, protection not 
available - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3841506. 
Appellant filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate 
E 
alleging that respondent No. 2 (a Deputy Superintendent 
of Police) during investigation of a criminal case lodged 
at the instance of her husband, threatened her husband 
asking him to withdraw the complaint. The Magistrate 
took cognizance of the matter and issued summons u/s. 
3841506 IPC. 
F 
Respondent· No. 2 moved High Court seeking 
quashing of the cognizance and issue of process. High 
Court quashed· the proceedings on the ground that the 
Magistrate could not have taken cognizance without prior G 
sanction u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. as the alleged offence was 
committed in the course of discharge of his official duty. 
Hence the present appeal. 
99 
H 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. All acts done by a public servant in the 
purported discharge of his official duties cannot as a 
matter of course be brought under the protective 
8 umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. The underlying object of 
Section 197 Cr.P .C is to enable the authorities to 
scrutinize the allegations made against a public servant 
to shield him/her against frivolous, vexatious or false 
prosecution initiated with the main object of causing 
embarrassment and harassment to the said official. If the 
c authority vested in a public servant is misused for doing 
things which are not otherwise permitted under the law, 
such acts cannot· claim the protection of Section 197 
Cr.P .C. and have to be considered de hors the duties 
which a public servant is required to discharge or 
D perform. Hence, in respect of prosecution for such 
excesses or misuse of authority, no protection can be 
demanded by the public servant concerned. [Para 14) 
(106-8-F) 
E 
1.2 In the instant case, certain deeds and acts have 
been attributed to respondent No.2 and another accused, 
which cannot be said to have been part of the official 
duties to be performed by respondent No.2. Hence, 
respondent No.2 was not entitled to the protection of 
F Section 197 Cr.P.C. in respect of such acts. It was not 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 
G 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 Cr.P.C. [Paras 15 and 
17) (106-F-G; 107-C-D] 
H 
Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1973 SC 2591; 
CHOUDHURY PARVEEN SULTANA v. STATE OF WEST 101 
BENGAL AND ANR. 
Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N.P. Misra (1971) 1 SCR 317 A 
and Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 
1, relied on. 
Sankaran Moitra vs. Sadhna Das and Anr. (2006) 4 SCC 
584, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2006) 4 sec 584 
Referred to. 
Para 5 
AIR 1973 SC 2591 
Relied on. 
Para 7 
(1971) 1 SCR 317 
Relied on. 
Para 8 
(2001) 1 sec 1 
Relied on. 
Para 9 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CrilT)inal Appeal 
No. 8 of 2009. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.8.2006 of the 
High Court at Calcutta in C.R.R. No. 786 of 2006. 
Pijush K. Roy and Sunil Kumar Verma for the Appellant. 
Suchit Mohanta, Amit Sharma, Anupam Lal Das, Avjit 
Bhattacharjee and Saumya Kundu for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Al TAMAS KABIR,J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The short point involved in this appeal is whether in view 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, previous 
sanction 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.