Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's quashing, for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, of murder-conspiracy proceedings against Madhya Pradesh police officers accused of registering a bogus Excise Act case to give the main murder accused an alibi. Lodging a false case and fabricating evidence is no part of official duty; the officer not posted at the police station needed no sanction at all, and sanction for the others was left to be decided at trial.
Issues
- Whether the CJM, Firozabad could take cognizance of the chargesheets against respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 without sanction under Section 197 CrPC, that is, whether registering an allegedly false Excise Act case to create an alibi for a murder accused was an act done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty.
- At what stage the question of sanction may be raised and decided, and whether the High Court was right to quash the proceedings at a preliminary stage.
Provisions considered
- Section 197(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court surveyed the case law and summarised the tests: protection extends only to acts reasonably connected with official duty, judged by the quality of the act; it does not cover the misuse of office to lodge a bogus case or fabricate evidence. A sanction question may arise at any stage, and trials should not be quashed prematurely where it is doubtful. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 65, 66, 67, 68, 74, 83, 84, 85)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court had used its inherent power to quash the proceedings for want of sanction; the Supreme Court held this was an error at a preliminary stage where the need for sanction was at best doubtful. (¶¶ 2, 19, 84)
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Statements recorded by police under this section are not substantive evidence and may be used only to prove contradictions or omissions; the Court therefore declined to rest findings on them at this stage and left their veracity to the trial court. (¶¶ 77, 78, 79)
- Section 145, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Cited as limiting the use of prior police statements to contradicting a witness. (¶¶ 77, 78)
- Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 201 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860The respondents were chargesheeted under these provisions for conspiracy in the murder by allegedly creating a false alibi; the Court restored the proceedings without deciding the merits. (¶¶ 14, 17, 83, 84)
Held
- Section 197 CrPC protects public servants from vexatious prosecution for acts done or purportedly done in official duty. Its words are to be construed neither too narrowly nor too widely: strictly in limiting it to acts in the course of duty, but liberally as to the official nature of an act once that is shown. (¶ 65)
- The test is whether there is a reasonable connection between the act and official duty such that the accused can make a reasonable, not pretended or fanciful, claim that he acted in performing his duty. It is the quality of the act that matters; mere opportunity furnished by office is not enough; excess in performing duty does not remove protection; and a useful test is whether failing to do the act would have exposed the officer to a charge of dereliction of duty. (¶ 65)
- The protection cannot be used to camouflage crime under colour of office. Misuse of power, such as threatening witnesses, illegal detention, conspiring to create false documents or harassing searches, falls outside Section 197; a police officer who lodges a false case and fabricates evidence for it cannot claim sanction, since that is no part of official duty. (¶¶ 65, 66, 67)
- Respondent no. 1 was admittedly not posted at the Murar Police Station, and was serving in another district, when the allegedly false case was registered; any act attributed to him was outside his official duty and no sanction was needed to prosecute him. (¶¶ 67, 83)
- The question of sanction may arise at any stage; the court may look at all material on record and not only the complaint; where it cannot be decided without defence evidence, it should be left to the trial; and criminal trials should not be stayed or quashed prematurely. (¶¶ 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74)
- On the material before the Court, including the trial court's findings in the murder trial that the Gwalior arrest was a collusive fabrication, and given that neither side's account of the arrest could be verified at this stage, the proceedings should not have been quashed; if the prosecution case that respondent nos. 3 to 5 registered a false case is true, sanction is not required, but they may lead evidence to rebut it. (¶¶ 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84)
- The CJM rightly took cognizance; the trial court may stay the trial for want of sanction if evidence shows that respondent nos. 3 to 5 acted in discharge of official duty or that the Excise Act FIR was genuine, and the sanction question as to them is left open. (¶¶ 82, 84, 85)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court order quashing Case Nos. 67 of 2008 and 67A of 2009 set aside; trial to proceed before the CJM, Firozabad, with the question of sanction as to respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 left open, and to be concluded preferably within one year.