GURMEET KAUR versus DEVENDER GUPTA & ANOTHER

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1602 · Decided: 26-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1602 : 2024 INSC 967
Gurmeet Kaur 
v. 
Devender Gupta & Another
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 4825-4826 of 2024)
26 November 2024
[B.V. Nagarathna* and  
Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh JJ.] 
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the appellant while discharging her duty as a 
public servant on the relevant date, there was any excess in the 
discharge of the said duty which did not require the first respondent 
to take a prior sanction for prosecuting the appellant.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Prosecution of 
Judges and public servants – Appellant-District Town Planner 
(Enforcement) and 12 others forcibly entered the college of 
the respondent-chairman, created chaos and took away the 
college telephone forcibly – Complaint filed but no action 
taken – Thereafter, the appellant asked for the building map/
plan and other documents, and one of the accused demanded 
illegal gratification but the respondent refused – Consequently, 
the appellant forcibly entered the college premises along with 
police personnel with heavy machinery and equipment for 
demolition and after vacating the campus, the demolition took 
place – In a writ petition, the Local Commissioner appointed by 
the High Court submitted his report that the existing building 
was constructed prior to 2004 much before the notification 
whereby respondent’s college area was declared controlled 
area – Private complaint filed – All accused discharged except 
the appellant-and accused nos.2 and 4 – Summoning order 
passed against them u/ss. 452, 506, 427, 384, 440, 166 read 
with s.120-B IPC – Thereafter, petition u/s. 482 CrPC by the 
appellant seeking quashing of the complaint, all consequential 
proceedings, and the summoning order – High Court dismissed 
the petition – Correctness:
*Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1603
Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta & Another
Held: Appellant who is accused of carrying out the demolition was 
doing so within the scope and ambit of her authority – Not a case 
where appellant carried out the demolition dehors any legal backing 
or basis; neither was the said act of carrying out of the demolition 
outside the scope of her authority as the District Town Planner in 
the Enforcement Division – Appellant was carrying out the orders 
of the superior officers – There is a correlation between the act 
of demolition and the discharge of official duty – Demolition was 
carried out during the course of performance of appellant’s official 
duties – Fact that an application was filed seeking regularisation 
of the construction put up by the first respondent would indicate 
that even according to the first respondent, there was a digression 
and other irregularities in the construction put up which required 
regularisation – It cannot be said that when such an application 
was pending, the appellant had no authority to demolish the 
construction – Impugned demolition cannot also be termed as 
an “excess” – First respondent ought to have sought sanction for 
prosecution u/s.197 – Same, not having been done vitiated the 
initiation of the criminal proceeding against the appellant – Thus, 
the summoning order and the consequent steps taken by the trial 
court pursuant to the said summoning order quashed – Since there 
was no prior order of sanction passed u/s.197 of the CrPC, the 
initiation of the complaint itself, is non est. [Paras 32, 33]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Prosecution of 
Judges and public servants – Object and purpose of s.197:
Held: Is to protect officers and officials of the State from unjustified 
criminal prosecution while they discharge their duties within the 
scope and ambit of their powers entrusted to them – Reading of 
s.197 indicate that there is a bar for a Court to take cognizance 
of such offences mentioned in the said provision except with 
the previous sanction of the appropriate government when the 
allegations are made against, inter alia, a public servant – Salient 
words relevant under sub-section (1) of s.197 are “is accused of 
any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting 
or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court 
shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous 
sanction” – Thus, for the purpose of application of s.197, a sine 
qua non is that the public servant is accused of any offence 
which had been committed by him in “discharge of his official 
1604
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Report

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