The Supreme Court Yesterday (Dec 13) held that a police official who lodges a false case against an individual cannot claim immunity from prosecution under the guise of official duty. A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said protection of Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be extended to such officers who misuse or abuse their powers.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court unequivocally declared that police officers who register false cases cannot claim immunity under the guise of performing their official duties.
In a landmark judgment delivered by a Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, the Court clarified that such actions fall outside the protection afforded by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Understanding Section 197 CrPC
Section 197 of the CrPC shields public servants from prosecution for actions performed as part of their official duties. It mandates prior governmental sanction for initiating prosecution against such officials.
However, the Court emphasized that this provision does not extend to acts involving misuse or abuse of power.
“This Court has held in a legion of decisions that any misuse or abuse of powers by a public servant to do something that is impermissible in law like threatening to provide a tutored statement or trying to obtain signatures on a blank sheet of paper; causing the illegal detention of an accused; engaging in a criminal conspiracy to create false or fabricated documents; conducting a search with the sole object of harassing and threatening individuals, amongst others, cannot fall under the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC,”
-the Court asserted.
False Cases and Official Duty
The Court ruled that police officials accused of lodging false cases cannot seek protection under Section 197 CrPC. It reasoned that filing a fabricated case or creating false evidence does not constitute an official duty.
“On examining the quality of the act, it is evident that there exists no reasonable or rational nexus between such acts and the official duties. It follows that when a police official is said to have lodged a false case, he cannot claim that sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC 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,”
-the judgment elaborated.
The Court further observed that wrongful acts stemming from official duties do not automatically qualify for immunity.
“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,”
-it cautioned.
The Madhya Pradesh Police Case
The judgment stemmed from a case involving Madhya Pradesh Police officials accused of fabricating an Excise Act case to create an alibi for Ashok Dixit, a murder accused in Uttar Pradesh. On October 12, 2007, Suman Prakash Yadav, a teacher, was allegedly murdered by Surender Singh Gurjar, Veerbhan Gurjar, Ashok Dixit, Pappu Dixit, Sanjay Dixit, and others.
The same day, Ashok Dixit was arrested by MP Police for allegedly carrying illegal liquor but was released on bail within hours. Investigations revealed that the Excise Act case was fabricated to shield Dixit, a relative of an MP police officer.
In 2012, a Firozabad trial court convicted Ashok Dixit and 11 others of murder.
However, proceedings against the MP police officials stalled, with the Allahabad High Court quashing charges in 2018, citing a lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
The victim’s brother then approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for prematurely quashing the proceedings. It found no credible evidence supporting the accused officers’ claims of acting in good faith.
“So far as the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively are concerned, if the case of the prosecution that they had also played a dubious role in registering a false case is correct, then the requirement of sanction would not be a sin qua non for proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. However, the defence must be given an opportunity to rebut the same by leading appropriate evidence,”
-the Court stated.
Regarding a fourth officer, the Court noted he was not even stationed at the police station where the fabricated case originated, making his actions entirely outside the scope of official duty.
Conclusion and Directions
The Supreme Court concluded that the trial must proceed, leaving the question of sanction open for determination based on future evidence. It instructed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, stating:
“In case where there is a legitimate doubt as regards whether sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC is required or not, the progress of the trial must not be hampered or unnecessarily delayed. Therefore, the CJM, Firozabad had rightly taken cognizance of the two charge sheets vide its orders dated 24.11.2008 and 10.08.2009 respectively. The High Court committed an error in failing to consider this aspect while quashing the proceedings in Case No. 67 of 2008 and 67A of 2009 respectively vide its impugned order.”
The Court also clarified that if evidence later indicates the case was filed in the discharge of official duties, the trial could be paused for requisite sanction.
“The question of sanction only qua respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively is left open to be appropriately decided by the Trial Court at a suitable stage, in accordance with the law, without being prejudiced by any of the observations made in this order as well as in the order passed by the High Court. As these proceedings arise from a case registered more than 16 years ago, the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial & conclude it expeditiously preferably within one year from today,”
-the Court ordered.
Representation in Court
Senior Advocate Ravindra Singh represented the appellant.
And Senior Advocate R Basant appeared for the respondents.
CASE TITLE:
Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay and Others.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on False Cases
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
