INDRA DEVI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 23 · Decided: 23-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
23
INDRA DEVI
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2021)
JULY 23, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.197 – Sanction for
prosecution – Case of complainant was that in a sale transaction,
the purchaser fabricated the agreement with the intention to defraud
her – This was allegedly done in collusion with the then executive
officer of the municipality,  junior engineer  and the concerned
clerk by enlarging the dimensions of the plot whch was sold to him
with the intention to grab the land and house occupied by the
complainant and her husband – Respondent no.2 was the concerned
clerk during the relevant period though he was neither named in
the FIR nor in the charge sheet – Respondent no.2 filed application
u/s.197, however it was dismissed on the ground that he was liable
to be prosecuted for having committed criminal offence of preparing
forged lease – High Court, however, allowed s.482 application filed
by respondent no.2 – On appeal, held: Superior officers, who had
dealt with the file, were granted protection while the clerk, who did
the paper work, i.e. Respondent No.2, was denied similar protection
by the trial court even though the allegation was of really conspiring
with his superior officers – Neither the State nor the complainant
appealed against the protection granted u/s.197 qua these two other
officers – A  similar protection ought to have been granted to
Respondent No.2 as was done in the case of the other two officials
– High Court was, therefore, right in holding that sanction u/s.197
was required before triggering prosecution.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 197 of the CrPC seeks to protect an
officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an offence
committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of
his official duties and, thus, prohibits the court from taking
cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of
the competent authority. Public servants have been treated as a
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 23
23
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
24
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
special category in order to protect them from malicious or
vexatious prosecution. At the same time, the shield cannot protect
corrupt officers and the provisions must be construed in such a
manner as to advance the cause of honesty, justice and good
governance. The alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating,
fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in
discharge of their official duty. However, such sanction is
necessary if the offence alleged against the public servant is
committed by him “while acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official duty” and in order to find out whether the
alleged offence is committed “while acting or purporting to act in
the discharge of his official duty”, the yardstick to be followed is
to form a prima facie view whether the act of omission for which
the accused was charged had a reasonable connection with the
discharge of his duties. The real question, therefore, is whether
the act committed is directly concerned with the official duty. [Para
9][28-E-H; 29-A-C]
2. The factum of Respondent No. 2 not being named in the
FIR is not of much significance as the alleged role came to light
later on. However, what is of significance is the role assigned to
him in the alleged infraction, i.e. conspiring with his superiors.
What emerges therefrom is that insofar as the processing of the
papers was concerned, the Executive Officer, had put his initials
to the relevant papers which was held in discharge of his official
duties. Not only that, Junior Engineer who was part of the alleged
transaction, was also similarly granted protection. The work which
was assigned to Respondent No. 2 pertained to the subject matter
of allotment, regularisation, conversion of agricultural land and
fell within his domain of work. In the processing of application,
the file was initially put up to the Executive Officer who directed
the inspection and the inspection was carried out by the Junior
Engineer and only thereafter the Municipal Commissioner signed
the file. The result was that the superior officers, who dealt with
the file, were granted protection while the clerk, who did the
paper work, i.e. Respondent No. 2, was denied similar protection
by the trial court even though the allegation was of really
conspiring with his superior officers. Neither the State nor the
complainant

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