LexOM PRAKASH YADAV versus NIRANJAN KUMAR UPADHYAY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 777 : 2024 INSC 979 Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 5267-5268 of 2024) 13 December 2024 [J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether in the absence of the grant of sanction for prosecution u/s.197 CrPC, the CJM, Firozabad could have taken cognizance of the charge sheets against the respondents; and whether the offence or the act alleged to have been committed by the respondents could be said to have been done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Prosecution of Judges and public servants – Incident of indiscriminate firing by eight persons including main accused at Firozabad resulting in death of the brother of the appellant and grievous injuries to brother's son – FIR by appellant – On the same day, another FIR registered against the main accused by respondent no. 5-head constable for carrying bottles of illegal foreign liquor at Gwalior – Respondent no.5, alongwith respondent no. 3-Head Constable and respondent no. 4-A.S.I. arrested the accused and released him on bail the same day – Chargesheet submitted by IO – Chargesheet also submitted in the first FIR stating that investigation was still pending against respondent no. 1, Town Inspector, respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 for shielding the accused – Thereafter, application by IO for staying the proceedings against the accused as regards illegal liquor case alleging that respondent no. 1 was a relative of the accused and respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 had conspired to create a bogus case with the object of providing the main accused with an alibi for alleged crime committed at Firozabad which was rejected – Application by IO seeking sanction u/s.197 for prosecuting the respondents – Sanction could not be granted till the disposal * Author 778 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports of the trial in case arising out of FIR in Gwalior – Appellant sought quashing of criminal proceedings in the case regarding seizure of illegal liquor – High Court stayed the proceedings – Supplementary charge sheets filed against respondents for being involved in hatching conspiracy of murder of the appellant's brother and CJM took cognizance – Respondents then filed application seeking quashing the proceedings arising out of the supplementary charge sheets – High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that sanction to prosecute respondents u/s.197 was necessary – Correctness: Held: When a police official is said to have lodged a false case, he cannot claim that sanction for prosecution u/s. 197 was required since it can be no part of the official duty of a public official to lodge a bogus case and fabricate evidence or documents in connection with the same – There exists no reasonable or rational nexus between such an act and the duties assigned to the public servant for the claim that it was done or purported to be done in the discharge of his official duty – Mere fact that an opportunity to register a false case was furnished by the official duty would certainly not be sufficient to apply s. 197 – Allowing so, would enable the accused to use their status as public servants as a facade for doing an objectionable, illegal and unlawful act and take undue advantage of their position – If case registered in Gwalior was a false case then refusal to grant sanction would not operate as a bar for their prosecution – Moreover, the respondent no. 1 was not even posted as the S.H.O or T.I at the Police Station when the said false case was registered – Respondent no. 1 himself admitted that he was in fact posted at District, 120 kms away from Gwalior during the relevant time – Thus, any act or offence committed by the respondent no. 1 can safely be said to have been outside the scope of his official duty which obviates the question of sanction for his prosecution – Requirement of sanction is one that may arise at any stage of the proceeding – No requirement of sanction for respondent no. 1 as he was not posted at the Police station in Gwalior at the relevant time where the alleged false was registered – For respondent nos 3, 4, 5 if the prosecution case is correct that they also played dubious role in registering a false case, then the requirement of sanction would not be a sin qua non for proceeding further with the criminal proceedings – However, the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.