Protection under Section 197 CrPC is meant for honest officials not for those who misuse

Facts

The case revolves around a criminal matter where the appellant, Om Prakash Yadav, challenged the quashing of criminal proceedings by the Allahabad High Court. The criminal proceedings were linked to the murder of the appellant’s brother, Suman Prakash Yadav, and the grievous injury to his nephew, Harsh, by the accused Ashok Dixit and others. An alleged conspiracy involving police officials was also part of the case, where a false alibi was created to shield the accused.

Contentions of the Appellant

The appellant argued that:

1. The High Court erred in quashing the proceedings on the ground that no sanction under Section 197 CrPC was obtained.
2. The act of creating a false alibi and conspiring to shield the accused was not performed in the discharge of official duties, making the sanction unnecessary.
3. The Trial Court had already established the guilt of the accused, including Ashok Dixit, making the High Court’s decision untenable.
4. The respondents, including police officials, colluded to fabricate an FIR under the Excise Act to provide an alibi for the accused.
5. Independent witnesses confirmed the conspiracy, further justifying the continuation of proceedings.

Contentions of the Respondents

Respondent No. 1 (Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay):

1. Denied involvement in creating a false FIR and claimed he was not posted at the relevant police station.
2. Argued that sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required, as the alleged act was linked to official duty.
3. Highlighted his age and the time elapsed since retirement, suggesting that pursuing the case would serve no purpose.

Respondents Nos. 3, 4, and 5:

1. Asserted that they acted under superior’s orders without knowledge of any conspiracy.
2. Claimed their implication stemmed from interdepartmental rivalry and lack of evidence linking them to the murder conspiracy.
3. Emphasized the absence of direct allegations in the original FIR and discrepancies in witness statements.

Issues

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the respondents required prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
2. Whether the alleged acts of creating a false FIR and conspiring to shield the accused were performed in the discharge of official duties.
3. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings in the absence of such sanction.

Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court emphasized that acts of conspiracy and fabrication of an FIR to shield an accused cannot be considered part of official duties. It held that sanction under Section 197 CrPC is unnecessary when the alleged acts are not integrally connected with the discharge of official duties. The Court reiterated the principle that the protection under Section 197 CrPC is meant for honest officials performing their duties, not for those misusing their positions for personal or illegal purposes. The decision of the High Court was deemed erroneous, as it failed to appreciate the nature of the allegations and the findings of the Trial Court.

Principle of the Case

The principle established is that acts constituting an offense, such as fabricating evidence or conspiring to shield an accused, cannot be deemed to have been performed in the discharge of official duties, thereby negating the requirement for sanction under Section 197 CrPC.

Final Order

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order quashing the proceedings and directed the continuation of the criminal case against the respondents. It held that no sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required for prosecuting the respondents.

Importance of the Judgment to Society

This judgment underscores the accountability of public officials and the limits of immunity under Section 197 CrPC. It reinforces that misuse of official positions for illegal acts, such as shielding criminals, cannot be protected under the guise of performing official duties. The ruling upholds the principle of justice and ensures that public trust in law enforcement and judicial processes remains intact.

Case Citation

Court Name: Supreme Court of India
Case Title: Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 5267-5268 of 2024
Date of Judgment: December 13, 2024
Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J.