TITLE: SHADAKSHARI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR
CITATION: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.256 OF 2024
DECIDED ON: 17 JANUARY 2024
CORAM: JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA , JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Facts of the Case
The appellant, Shadakshari, filed a complaint on 19.12.2016, alleging that respondent No.2, a Village Accountant in Karnataka, along with another person, irregularly created fake documents related to a property owned by the appellant’s family. The documents included a death certificate and a family tree, despite knowing they were fake. The complaint led to the registration of an FIR under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Haleebedu Police Station. Respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) before the High Court, seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court initially declined interference, citing specific and serious allegations against respondent No.2. However, after the charge sheet was filed, respondent No.2 again approached the High Court, arguing that as a public servant, he could not be prosecuted without sanction, which had been denied. The High Court quashed the complaint, chargesheet, and related orders on 25.11.2020, stating that without sanction, the prosecution against a public servant cannot continue.
Legal Provisions:
The primary legal provision in question is Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), which deals with the prosecution of judges and public servants. This section mandates obtaining prior sanction for prosecuting public servants for acts committed in the discharge of their official duties.
Issues Involved:
The main issue revolves around whether sanction is required to prosecute respondent No.2, who is accused of creating fake documents while in his official capacity as a Village Accountant. The denial of sanction by the competent authority is central to the legal question. Additionally, the appellant challenges the High Court’s decision to quash the entire complaint and charge sheet.
Court’s Observation and Analysis
The court analyzed the scope of Section 197 Cr.PC, emphasizing that its protection is limited to acts or omissions done by public servants in the discharge of their official duties. Referring to precedents, the court reiterated that not every act or omission by a public servant is shielded under Section 197. The court observed that the act of creating fake documents might not be integral to the discharge of official duties. Referring to earlier decisions, the court concluded that the protection under Section 197 does not extend to acts falling outside the scope of official duties. It found the present case distinguishable from a precedent cited by respondent No.2. The court held that the denial of sanction did not automatically render the act integral to official duties, and the matter should proceed to trial to determine if respondent No.2 was involved in fabricating documents. The court criticized the High Court’s decision to quash the entire complaint and charge sheet, stating that observations made in this judgment were only for deciding the present challenge. It noted the impropriety of respondent No.2 challenging the complaint in addition to the charge sheet. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order dated 25.11.2020. The court clarified that its observations were specific to the present challenge, and all contentions were kept open. No costs were awarded.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
