Summary
A District Town Planner who, on her superiors' orders, demolished unauthorised construction in a controlled area was summoned on a private complaint without sanction. The Supreme Court held that the demolition was reasonably connected with her official duty and was not an excess, so sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required. It quashed the summoning order and held the complaint non est, with liberty to the complainant to seek sanction.
Issues
- Whether previous sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required before a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC could proceed against a District Town Planner (Enforcement) for a demolition carried out by her.
- Whether the demolition, carried out while the complainant's regularisation application was pending with another department, was an excess of official duty falling outside the protection of Section 197 CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 197(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The bar on cognizance without previous sanction applies only to offences alleged against a public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, tested by whether the act is reasonably connected with that duty. As the demolition was within the appellant's authority and done on superiors' orders, sanction was necessary and its absence vitiated the proceedings. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 32, 33)
- Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The complaint was a private complaint under Section 200; the Court held that the complainant still had to obtain sanction under Section 197 before initiating it against the public servant. (¶¶ 5, 20, 33)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court's refusal to entertain the appellant's petition to quash the summoning order was set aside, and the Supreme Court itself quashed the summoning order for want of sanction. (¶¶ 2, 7, 30, 33)
Held
- Section 197 CrPC protects public servants from unjustified prosecution for acts done in discharging their duties; it bars cognizance without previous sanction only where the offence is alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, and does not apply to offences unconnected with that duty. (¶ 22)
- Following the line of authority discussed (including D. Devaraja and Amod Kumar Kanth), the test is whether there is a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty; where the act is indisputably traceable to official duty, an objection to cognizance for want of sanction should not be deferred, and the question of sanction must not be conflated with whether an offence was committed. (¶ 23)
- Decisions relied on by the complainant, including Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava and Urmila Devi, where the acts were unconnected with or wholly outside official duty, turned on their own facts and did not apply to this case. (¶ 24)
- The appellant demolished additional construction raised after the controlled area notification, following a show-cause notice, a restoration order under the Act and the deputation of Duty Magistrates, and acting on her superiors' orders. The demolition was within the scope of her authority as District Town Planner (Enforcement) and correlated with her official duty. (¶¶ 25, 26, 32)
- The pendency of a regularisation application before another department did not take away the basis for the demolition; the application itself implied that the construction was irregular, and the demolition could not be termed an excess of duty. (¶ 32)
- The complainant ought to have obtained sanction under Section 197 CrPC; in its absence the initiation of the complaint was non est and the summoning order and all consequent steps were liable to be quashed, though the complainant remains free to seek sanction in accordance with law. (¶ 33)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside; summoning order dated 20.11.2014 and consequent proceedings quashed and the complaint held non est for want of sanction; liberty reserved to the first respondent to seek sanction in accordance with law.