FAKHRUZAMMA versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 824 · Decided: 12-12-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 824 
FAKHRUZAMMA 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2086 of 2013) 
DECEMBER 12, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
c 
s. 197 - Previous sanction for prosecution of public 
servant- Held: s.197 clearly indicates that previous sanction 
is required for prosecuting only such public servants who 
could be removed by sanction of the Government - Clauses 
(a) and (b) of r.825 of Jharkhand Police Manual confer power 
0 on the Inspector General of Police or the Deputy Inspector 
General of Police to pass orders for removal of police officers 
up to the rank of Inspector, without obtaining prior approval 
of State Government - High Court has rightly held that since 
the competent authority had removed the appellant from 
E service, sanction uls 197 was not warranted - Jharkhand 
Police Manual - rr.825(a) and (b). 
The appellant filed a petition before the High Court 
seeking to quash the proceedings of a complaint case 
before the Judicial Magistrate, filed against him alleging 
F offences punishable ulss 456, 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 201, 
120-B and 304 IPC. His case was that he was a Sub-
Inspector of Police and the alleged act was committed 
while discharging his official duty and in the absence of 
previous sanction of the State Government uls 197 CrPC, 
G the Judicial Magistrate could not have taken cognizance 
of the offences alleged. The High Court dismissed the 
petition holding that since the competent authority had 
removed the appellant from service, sanction uls 197 
CrPC was not warranted. 
H 
824 
FAKHRUZAMMA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 
825 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. Section 197 CrPC clearly indicates that 
previous sanction is required for prosecuting only such 
public servants who could be removed by sanction of the 
Government. Clauses (a) and (b) of r.825 of the Jharkhand 
8 
Police Manual confer power on the Inspector General of 
Police or the Deputy Inspector General of Police to pass 
orders for removal of police officers up to the rank of 
Inspector. Before passing the order of removal, the 
Inspector General of Police or the Deputy Inspector C 
General of Police need not obtain prior approval of the 
State Government. In Nagrafs case a Three-Judge Bench 
of this Court has held that an Inspector General of Police 
can dismiss a Sub-Inspector and, therefore, no sanction 
of the Stat•e Government for prosecution of the appellant 
was necessary even if he had committed the offences 
D 
alleged while acting or purporting to act in discharge of 
this official duty. [para 7-8] [830-C; 831-B-E] 
Nagraj v. State of Mysore (1964) 3 SCR 671 =AIR 1964 
SC 269 - relied on. 
Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das & Anr. 2006 (3) 
SCR 305 = (2006) 4 SCC 584; and Rakesh Kumar Mishra 
v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2006 (1) SCR 124 = (2006) 1 SCC 
557 - held inapplicable. 
1.2. The High Court was right in applying the ratio laid 
down in Nagraj while interpreting the provisions of the 
Jharkhand Police Manual and the view of the High Court 
is endorsed. [para 9] [831-F-G] 
Case Law Reference: 
2006 (1) SCR 124 
2006 (3) SCR 305 
held inapplicable 
Para 4 
held inapplicable 
Para 4 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
826 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 
(1964) 3 SCR 671 
relied on 
para 5 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 2086 of 2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2011 of the 
8 
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in CRLMP No. 1669 of 
2006. 
c 
S. K. Katriar, Manoj K. Srivastava, Rameshwar Prasad 
Goyal for the Appellant. 
Jayesh Gaurav, Anil K. Jha, Priyanka Tyagi, Mithilesh 
Kumar Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The question that has come up for consideration in this 
case is whether sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is 
necessary from the State Government befom prosecuting the 
E Appellant, though he was removed from service following the 
procedure laid down in Jharkhand Police Manual. 
3. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in 
Complaint Case No.281 of 2003, T.R. No.835 OF 2006, took 
cognizance against the Appellant for various offences under 
F 
Sections 456, 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 201, 1208 and 304 
IPC. That order was challenged by the Appellant before the 
High Court by filing Crl. M.P. No.1669 of 2006 under Section 
482 Cr.P.C. stating that in the absence of previous sanction of 
the State Governm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.