LexSHADAKSHARI versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 1 S.C.R. 429 : 2024 INSC 42 Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2024) 17 January 2024 [Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan*, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether sanction u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. is required to prosecute respondent No. 2 who faces accusation amongst others of creating fake documents by misusing his official position as a Village Accountant, thus a public servant. The competent authority has declined to grant sanction to prosecute. High Court has held that in the absence of such sanction, respondent No. 2 cannot be prosecuted and consequently has quashed the complaint as well as the chargesheet, giving liberty to the appellant to assail denial of sanction to prosecute respondent No. 2 in an appropriate proceeding, if so advised. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Sanction under – Appellant-complainant lodged an FIR alleging that respondent no.2 and another were irregularly creating documents of property in the name of dead person despite knowing the fact those were fake documents – The High Court observed that respondent no.2 was a public servant – The offence complained against him, as per prosecution, was committed while discharging his duties as a public servant – Sanction sought by the investigating officer was denied – Consequently, the High Court held that since sanction was refused, prosecution for criminal offence against public servant cannot continue – Propriety: Held: It is settled that s.197 Cr.P.C. does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service – It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties – The 430 [2024] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports question whether respondent No.2 was involved in fabricating official documents by misusing his official position as a public servant is a matter of trial – Certainly, a view can be taken that manufacturing of such documents or fabrication of records cannot be a part of the official duty of a public servant – If that be the position, the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety, more so when there are two other accused persons besides respondent No.2 – There is another aspect of the matter – Respondent No.2 had unsuccessfully challenged the complaint in an earlier proceeding u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. – Though liberty was granted by the High Court to respondent No.2 to challenge any adverse report if filed subsequent to the lodging of the complaint, instead of confining the challenge to the chargesheet, respondent No.2 also assailed the complaint as well which he could not have done – The High Court erred in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety. [Paras 23, 25] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 197 – Ambit, scope and effect of: Held: The object of such sanction for prosecution is to protect a public servant discharging official duties and functions from undue harassment by initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings. [Para 19] Case Law Cited State of Orissa Vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew, [2004] 3 SCR 504:(2004) 8 SCC 40; D. Devaraja Vs. Obais Sanders Hussain, [2020] 6 SCR 453:(2020) 7 SCC 695 – relied on. A.Srinivasulu v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, [2023] 10 SCR 11: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 900 – distinguished. Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, [2013] 14 SCR 713:(2014) 2 SCC 1; Shambhoo Nath Misra Vs State of U.P., [1997] 2 SCR 1139:(1997) 5 SCC 326 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 197. [2024] 1 S.C.R. 431 Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr. List of Keywords Public servant; Fabrication of record; Discharge of official duties; Sanction; Protective cover to act or omission by public servant. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 2024. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2020 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRP No.4998 of 2020. Appearances for Parties C. B. Gururaj, Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Animesh Dubey, T. G. Ravi, Advs. for the Appellant. D. L. Chidananda, Rahul Kaushik, Anil C Nishani, V Murnal, Krishna M Singh, Rajivkumar, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge made in this appeal is to the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Hi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.