SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ganesh Prasad Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 2018


M.Cr.C. No. 17981/2016

Ganesh Prasad Dubey


State of Madhya Pradesh Ors.

[Single Bench : Hon’ble Smt. Anjuli Palo, Judge]
Shri Santosh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Akshay Namdeo, Government Advocate for respondent-State.



This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 13.07.2016 in Cr.C.No.

321/2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa whereby the

trial Court held that sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not required

for the prosecution of petitioner for committing offences under Section

383 and 384 of Cr.P.C.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was

posted at Police Station Baikunthpur as SHO till 15.05.2013. One

Sangeetha Sahu complained against Ram Niwas Sahu-respondent No. 3

for outraging her modesty. FIR was immediately lodged by Duty Officer

Dayanand Sharma on 08.08.2011 under Sections 294, 354, 506-Part II of

IPC against respondent No. 3. After due investigation, challan was filed in
2 M.Cr.C.No. 17981/2016

the concerned Court. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 354,

and 506-Part II of IPC against respondent No. 3. Thereafter, he

absconded. During the abscondence, he filed a private complaint against

the present petitioner and prosecutrix Sangeeta Sahu to conceal the fact of

pendency of criminal case No. 448/2011 against him.

3. At the time of the incident, the petitioner was a public servant,

hence trial Court did not register any case against him for want of

prosecution under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. But after the transfer of the

earlier presiding officer, a successor Magistrate registered criminal case

No. 321/2013 against the petitioner as co-accused without obtaining

proper sanction under Section 197 from the competent authority. Thus, he

filed an application for deleting his name from the case on the ground of

lack of proper sanction from the competent authority. The application was

rejected by the trial Court by making a complete avoidance of provisions

of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the

petitioner for quashing order dated 13.07.2016 and for directing the

learned Trial Court for deleting the name of the petitioner from the array of


4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent-State

and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 strongly opposed the

contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. In the written submission,

respondents No. 2 and 3 have submitted that the conduct of petitioner

indicates that he demanded money from complainant Ram Niwas
3 M.Cr.C.No. 17981/2016

Sahu against his official duty. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to make

out any prima facie case warranting any kind of interference of this Court.

Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties heard.

Perused the record.

6. Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint against the petitioner, one

Sangeeta Sahu and others on the ground that the petitioner wrongly

registered crime against respondent No. 3 for committing offence under

Section 354 of IPC with Sangeeta Sahu and detained respondent No. 3 for

a night. He demanded Rs. 2,000/- as bribe, hence after received Rs.

2,000/- from the family of respondent No. 3, he released the respondent

No. 3 from the custody. Respondent No. 3 tried to lodged the report

against him but FIR has not been lodged by the police against the

petitioner. Therefore, a private complaint was filed by respondent No. 3

against the petitioner. There is a possibility that as a counter blast,

respondent No. 3 filed the private complaint against the petitioner because

he was on officially bound to lodge FIR as presented by Sangeeta Sahu.

Therefore, sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is necessary for the

prosecution of the petitioner. Without due sanction, his prosecution for the

crime under Section 383 and 384 is not maintainable.

7. In case of Shambhoo Nath Misra Vs. State of UP Ors.,

(1997) 5 SCC 326, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :

“The essential requirement postulated for sanction to
prosecute the public servant is that the Offence
4 M.Cr.C.No. 17981/2016

alleged against the public servant must have been
done while acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official duties. In such a situation, it
postulates that the public servant’s act is in
furtherance of the performance of his official duties.
If the act/omission is integral to performance of
public duty, the public servant is entitled to the
protection under Section 197 (1) of Cr, P, C, without
previous sanction, the complaint/charge against him
for alleged offence cannot be proceeded with in the
trial, The sanction of the appropriate Government or
competent authority would be necessary to protect a
public servant from needless harassment or
prosecution. The protection of sanction is an
assurance to an honest- and sincere officer to
perform his public duty honestly and to the best of
his ability. The threat of prosecution demoralizes the
honest officer. The requirement of sanction by
competent authority of appropriate Government is an
assurance and protection to the honest officer who
does his official duty to further public interest
However, performance of Official duty Under colour
of public authority cannot be camouflaged to commit
crime. Public duty may provide him an opportunity
to commit crime. The Court to proceed further in the
trial or the enquiry, as the case may be, applies its
mind and records finding that the crime and the
official duty are not integrally connected.
Section 197 (1) postulates that “‘when any person
who is a public Servant not removable from his
office, save by or with the sanction of the
Government, is accused of any offence alleged to
have been committed by him, while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty,
no court shall take cognizance of such offence except
with the previous sanction of the appropriate

8. Therefore, as a public servant who perform his official duty,

the petitioner is entitled to protection under Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C.

Without previous sanction, the complaint/charge against him for the

alleged offence cannot be proceeded with in the trial court.
5 M.Cr.C.No. 17981/2016

9. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed. Consequently, the

prosecution of petitioner under Section 383 and 384 of Cr.P.C. on the

complaint of respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed for lack of sanction for

prosecution under Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. He is discharged from the

aforesaid charges levelled against him.

(Smt. Anjuli Palo)

Digitally signed by
Date: 2018.07.16
18:09:48 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation